SlideShare ist ein Scribd-Unternehmen logo
1 von 24
Downloaden Sie, um offline zu lesen
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
                   Division of Operations-Management


MEMORANDUM OM 11-74                          August 18, 2011


To:          All Regional Directors, Officers-in-Charge,
                and Resident Officers

From:        Anne Purcell, Associate General Counsel

Subject:     Report of the Acting General Counsel
               Concerning Social Media Cases


     Attached is a report of the Acting General Counsel
concerning social media cases within the last year.


                                       /s/
                                      A.P.

Attachment

cc: NLRBU
Release to the Public




                                             MEMORANDUM OM 11-74
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL


WASHINGTON, D.C.   20570




                   REPORT OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

     During my term as Acting General Counsel, I have endeavored
to keep the labor-management community fully aware of the
activities of my office. It is my hope that this openness will
encourage compliance with the Act and cooperation with Agency
personnel. As part of this goal, I continue the practice of
issuing periodic reports of cases raising significant legal or
policy issues.

     This report presents recent case developments arising in
the context of today’s social media. Social media include
various online technology tools that enable people to
communicate easily via the internet to share information and
resources. These tools can encompass text, audio, video,
images, podcasts, and other multimedia communications. Recent
developments in the Office of the General Counsel have presented
emerging issues concerning the protected and/or concerted nature
of employees’ Facebook and Twitter postings, the coercive impact
of a union’s Facebook and YouTube postings, and the lawfulness
of employers’ social media policies and rules. This report
discusses these cases, as well as a recent case involving an
employer’s policy restricting employee contacts with the media.
All of these cases were decided upon a request for advice from a
Regional Director.

     I hope that this report will be of assistance to
practitioners and human resource professionals.




                                   ___________/s/_____________
                                   Lafe E. Solomon
                                   Acting General Counsel
Employees’ Facebook Postings About Job Performance and
            Staffing Were Protected Concerted Activity

     In one case, we found that an Employer--a nonprofit social
services provider--unlawfully discharged five employees who had
posted comments on Facebook relating to allegations of poor job
performance previously expressed by one of their coworkers--a
domestic violence advocate. We concluded that the discharged
employees were engaged in protected concerted activity.

     In or around July 2010, the advocate began complaining to
one particular coworker that clients did not want to seek
services from the Employer. Similarly, in August she had
conversations with other coworkers in which she criticized the
work done by the Employer’s employees. She also sent regular
text messages to the one particular coworker, criticizing other
employees’ work performance and complaining about workload
issues.

     In early October, the advocate discussed several client and
workload issues with this one coworker, with the advocate
asserting, among other things, that the coworker had not
properly assisted a client. They exchanged multiple text
messages related to these issues. During the final exchange of
messages, the advocate said that the Employer’s Executive
Director would settle their differences.

     The one coworker then talked to another employee about what
she considered to be a constant barrage of text messages from
the advocate criticizing the job performance of the Employer’s
employees. This employee suggested that she meet with the
Employer’s Executive Director.

     To prepare for this meeting, the one coworker posted on
Facebook that the advocate felt that her coworkers did not help
the Employer’s clients enough. She then asked her coworkers how
they felt about it. The four coworkers who were later
discharged and the advocate responded to the Facebook posting.

     That evening, the advocate reported the Facebook
conversation to the Employer’s Executive Director, indicating
that she considered her coworkers’ Facebook comments to be
“cyber-bullying” and harassing behavior.

     On the next workday, the coworker tried to meet with the
Executive Director. The Executive Director said that she was
busy, but that she would call when she was available. A few
hours later, the coworker was called to the Executive Director’s
office and was terminated. That same day, the Employer
terminated the four other employees who had posted Facebook
responses to their coworker’s initial solicitation.
We first concluded that the discharged employees’ postings
on Facebook were concerted activity under the Meyers cases.
Meyers Industries (Meyers I), 268 NLRB 493 (1984), revd. sub nom
Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985), cert. denied 474
U.S. 948 (1985), on remand Meyers Industries (Meyers II), 281
NLRB 882 (1986), affd. sub nom Prill v. NLRB, 835 F.2d 1481
(D.C. Cir. 1987), cert. denied 487 U.S. 1205 (1988). In these
cases, the Board explained that an activity is concerted when an
employee acts “with or on the authority of other employees, and
not solely by and on behalf of the employee himself.”

     We decided that the Facebook discussion here was a textbook
example of concerted activity, even though it transpired on a
social network platform. The discussion was initiated by the
one coworker in an appeal to her coworkers for assistance.
Through Facebook, she surveyed her coworkers on the issue of job
performance to prepare for an anticipated meeting with the
Executive Director, planned at the suggestion of another
employee. The resulting conversation among coworkers about job
performance and staffing level issues was therefore concerted
activity.

     We next found that the discharged employees were engaged in
protected activity. The Board has found employee statements
relating to employee staffing levels protected where it was
clear from the context of the statements that they implicated
working conditions. This finding of protected activity does not
change if employee statements were communicated via the
internet. See, e.g., Valley Hospital Medical Center, 351 NLRB
1250, 1252-54 (2007), enfd. sub nom. Nevada Service Employees
Union, Local 1107 v. NLRB, 358 F. App’x 783 (9th Cir. 2009).

     Here, the coworker sought input from a fellow employee
about her dispute with the advocate after the advocate indicated
that they should have the Executive Director settle their
differences. The coworker had reason to believe that the
advocate’s action would result in a discussion with management
about employees’ responsibilities and performance and could
result in discipline. The comments of the other employees in
response to the coworker’s initial Facebook posting were
directly related to criticisms of job performance and
staffing/workload issues. Thus, because the Facebook postings
directly implicated terms and conditions of employment and were
initiated in preparation for a meeting with the Employer to
discuss matters related to these issues, we concluded that the
Facebook conversation was concerted activity for “mutual aid or
protection” under Section 7.

     Finally, we held that the discharged employees did not lose
the Act’s protection. Although there was swearing and/or
sarcasm in a few of the Facebook posts, the conversation was
objectively quite innocuous. We also found that the postings
were not “opprobrious” under the Atlantic Steel Co. test, 245
NLRB 814, 816-817 (1979), typically applied to employees
disciplined for public outbursts against supervisors.


      Internet and Blogging Standards and Discharge of Employee
               for Facebook Posting Were Unlawful

     In this case, we considered whether the Employer--an
ambulance service--maintained an unlawful internet and blogging
policy and whether it unlawfully terminated an employee who
posted negative remarks about her supervisor on her personal
Facebook page.

     When asked by her supervisor to prepare an incident report
concerning a customer complaint about her work, the employee
asked for a union representative while she prepared the report.
She did not receive any union representation. Later that day
from her home computer, the employee posted a negative remark
about the supervisor on her personal Facebook page, which drew
supportive responses from her coworkers, and led to further
negative comments about the supervisor from the employee. The
employee was suspended and later terminated for her Facebook
postings and because such postings violated the Employer’s
internet policies.

     The Employer’s employee handbook contained a blogging and
internet posting policy. It prohibited employees from making
disparaging remarks when discussing the company or supervisors,
and from depicting the company in any media, including but not
limited to the internet, without company permission.

     We initially concluded that the incident report the
employee was asked to prepare constituted an investigatory
interview to which the employee had a Weingarten right to union
representation, and that the Employer unlawfully denied her that
right and threatened her with discipline for invoking that
right. We then turned to whether the Employer unlawfully
terminated her for engaging in protected activity and whether it
maintained unlawful internet and blogging policies.

     We found that the General Counsel established a prima facie
case under Wright Line, and that the Employer did not meet its
rebuttal burden. The employee engaged in protected activity by
exercising her Weingarten right and by discussing supervisory
actions with coworkers in her Facebook post. It is well
established that the protest of supervisory actions is protected
conduct under Section 7. See Datwyler Rubber and Plastics,
Inc., 350 NLRB 669 (2007).

     Applying Atlantic Steel, we concluded that the employee did
not lose the Act’s protections when she referred to her
supervisor by such terms as “scumbag.” As to the place of the
discussion, the Facebook postings did not interrupt the work of
any employee because they occurred outside the workplace and
during nonworking time. As to the subject matter of the
discussion, the comments were made during an online employee
discussion of supervisory action, which is protected activity.
Regarding the nature of the outburst, the name-calling was not
accompanied by verbal or physical threats, and the Board has
found more egregious name-calling protected. We found that the
last Atlantic Steel factor strongly favored a finding that the
conduct was protected; the employee’s Facebook postings were
provoked by the supervisor’s unlawful refusal to provide her
with a union representative and by his unlawful threat of
discipline.

     We also considered the lawfulness of the Employer’s
blogging and internet posting policy. The first challenged
portion of the policy prohibited employees from posting pictures
of themselves in any media, including the internet, which depict
the company in any way, including a company uniform, corporate
logo, or an ambulance. We concluded that this language violated
Section 8(a)(1) because it would prohibit an employee from
engaging in protected activity; for example, an employee could
not post a picture of employees carrying a picket sign depicting
the company’s name, or wear a t-shirt portraying the company’s
logo in connection with a protest involving terms and conditions
of employment.

     We also concluded that the portion of the policy
prohibiting employees from making disparaging comments when
discussing the company or the employee’s superiors, coworkers,
and/or competitors was unlawful. In University Medical Center,
335 NLRB 1318, 1320-1322 (2001), enf. denied in pertinent part
335 F.3d 1079 (D.C. Cir. 2003), the Board found that a similar
rule prohibiting “disrespectful conduct” towards others violated
Section 8(a)(1). Like the rule in University Medical Center,
the rule here contained no limiting language to inform employees
that it did not apply to Section 7 activity.

     Also under challenge was the Employer’s standards-of-
conduct policy. This policy prohibited the use of language or
action that was inappropriate or of a general offensive nature,
and rude or discourteous behavior to a client or coworker. We
concluded that the prohibition here of “offensive conduct” and
“rude or discourteous behavior” proscribed a broad spectrum of
conduct and contained no limiting language to remove the rule’s
ambiguity in prohibiting Section 7 activity.


         Employee’s Facebook Postings Were Part of Protected
     Concerted Conduct Related to Concerns Over Commissions

     In this case, we concluded that the Employer--a luxury
automobile dealership--violated Section 8(a)(1) when it
discharged an employee--a salesperson--for posting on his
Facebook page photographs and commentary that criticized a sales
event held by the Employer. We concluded that the employee’s
postings were part of a course of protected, concerted conduct
related to employees’ concerns over commissions and were not
disparaging of the Employer’s product or so “egregious” as to
lose the Act’s protection.

     In early June 2010, the employee was at work when someone
in a vehicle at a dealership across the street, which was also
owned by the Employer, accidently drove into a pond in front of
the dealership. The employee joined his coworkers in watching
the commotion, and he took some photographs.

     That same week, the Employer was hosting an all-day event
to introduce a new car model. Clients registered for this
event, and the corporate office provided professional drivers to
drive the cars with clients. Shortly before the event, around
June 6, the Employer’s General Sales Manager met with the
salespeople to discuss the event. He explained that the
Employer would serve hot dogs, cookies and snacks from a
warehouse club, and water. The salespeople remarked about the
choice in food, and at least one asked why the Employer was not
serving more substantial refreshments.

     After the meeting, the salespeople discussed their
disappointment with the way the Employer was handling the event.
They were concerned that the inexpensive food and beverages
would send the wrong message to their clients and negatively
affect their sales and commissions.

     During the sales event, the employee took photographs of
the food and beverages served, of his coworkers posing with the
food, and of a large promotional banner advertising the new car
model.

     The following week, while at home, the employee posted on
his Facebook page the photographs of the vehicle in the pond and
of the sales event. In an introduction to the sales event
photographs, he remarked that he was happy to see that the
Employer had gone all out for the important car launch by
providing small bags of chips, inexpensive cookies from the
warehouse club, semi-fresh fruit, and a hot dog cart where
clients could get overcooked hot dogs and stale buns. The
photographs included one of a coworker holding a water bottle,
kneeling next to a cooler with ice and water bottles; several of
the cookie and snack table; one of a coworker near the hot dog
cart, and one of the promotional banner. The employee included
comments along with the photographs, reflecting his critical
opinion of the inexpensive food and beverages provided.

     The following week, the Employer received a call from
another dealer who commented about the photographs of the car in
the pond. A part-time coworker, who was Facebook “friend” with
the employee, had also seen the posting and had mentioned it to
her supervisor. This prompted the Employer to look at the
employee’s Facebook page and to print out the photographs and
comments related to the pond incident and the sales event. The
Employer’s General Sales Manager called the employee at home and
told him to remove the photographs and comments from his
Facebook page; he immediately complied.

     When the employee went to work on June 16, he was called
into a meeting with managers. The Employer tossed the printout
of the sales event photographs at him, asked him what he was
thinking, and said they were embarrassing to the dealership and
its founder and CEO. The Employer sent him home while it
considered a final decision regarding his employment. Shortly
after, the employee was terminated.

     Several months later, the Employer claimed that the real
reason for the employee’s discharge was his posting of the
photographs of the car in the pond because he had made light of
a serious accident.

     We concluded that the employee was engaged in concerted
activity, under the Meyers cases discussed above, when he posted
the comments and photographs regarding the sales event on his
Facebook page. As noted, before the event, several employees
were displeased with the planned food choices, and after the
meeting, the employees discussed this frustration among
themselves. At the event, the employee took photographs to
document the event and capture his coworker’s frustration. He
told his coworkers that he would put the photographs on
Facebook, and in doing so, expressed the sentiment of the group.
The Facebook activity was a direct outgrowth of the earlier
discussion among the salespeople that followed the meeting with
management.

     Although the employee posted the photographs on Facebook
and wrote the comments himself, we concluded that this type of
activity was clearly concerted. We found that he was vocalizing
the sentiments of his coworkers and continuing the course of
concerted activity that began when the salespeople raised their
concerns at the staff meeting. Further, we concluded that this
concerted activity clearly was related to the employees’ terms
and conditions of employment. Since the employees worked
entirely on commission, they were concerned about the impact the
Employer’s choice of refreshments would have on sales, and
therefore, their commissions.

     We found that the Employer knew of the concerted nature of
the employee’s conduct and that it could not meet its burden
under Wright Line of demonstrating that it would have discharged
the employee, even in the absence of the protected activity,
because of his postings regarding the incident with the car in
the pond.

     We also concluded that the employee’s activity did not lose
the protection of the Act under either Atlantic Steel or under
NLRB v. Electrical Workers Local 1229 (Jefferson Standard), 346
U.S. 464 (1953). As noted above, Atlantic Steel is generally
applied to an employee who has made public outbursts against a
supervisor, while Jefferson Standard is usually applied where an
employee has made allegedly disparaging comments about an
employer or its product in the context of appeals to outside or
third parties.

     Applying Atlantic Steel, we found that the employee’s
Facebook postings regarding the sales event were not so
opprobrious as to lose the Act’s protection. The activity
concerned a subject matter protected under Section 7. Further,
although the activity was not provoked by any unfair labor
practice committed by the Employer, the nature of the outburst
was much less offensive than other behavior found protected by
the Board. We found it unnecessary to rule on the place of the
discussion factor because, on balance, the conduct clearly
retained the Act’s protection.

     Under Jefferson Standard, the inquiry is whether the
communication is related to an ongoing labor dispute and whether
it is not so disloyal, reckless, or maliciously untrue as to
lose the Act’s protection. Here, the employee’s postings were
neither disparaging of the Employer’s product nor disloyal. The
postings merely expressed frustration with the Employer’s choice
of food at the sales event. They did not refer to the quality
of the cars or the performance of the dealership and did not
criticize the Employer’s management. We found it irrelevant
that the postings did not clearly indicate that they were
related to a labor dispute given that they were neither
disparaging nor disloyal.


  Employees’ Facebook Postings About Tax Withholding Practices
                Were Protected Concerted Activity

     We also considered a case in which the Employer-—a sports
bar and restaurant--discharged and threatened to sue two
employees who participated in a Facebook conversation initiated
by a former coworker about the Employer’s tax withholding
practices. This case also raised issues concerning the
Employer’s internet/blogging policy that prohibited
“inappropriate discussions.” We found that the discharges,
threats of legal action, and the internet policy were unlawful.

     In early 2011, several of the Employer’s former and current
employees discovered that they owed state income taxes for 2010,
related to earnings at the Employer. After this discovery, at
least one employee brought the issue to the Employer’s attention
and requested that the matter be placed on the agenda for
discussion at an upcoming management meeting with employees.

     Thereafter, on February 1, a former employee posted on her
Facebook page a statement, including a short-hand expletive,
that expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that she now owed
money. She also asserted that the Employer’s owners could not
even do paperwork correctly. One employee--Charging Party A--
responded to this posting by clicking “Like.” That same day, a
series of statements related to the initial posting followed.
Two other employees commented that they had never owed money
before, and one of them referred to telling the Employer that we
will discuss this at the meeting. Two of the Employer’s
customers joined in the conversation, as did Charging Party B,
who asserted that she also owed money and referred to one of the
Employer’s owners as “[s]uch an asshole.”

     The Charging Parties were not working on the day of the
Facebook conversation. When Charging Party B reported back to
work on February 2, she was told that her employment was
terminated due to her Facebook posting and because she was not
“loyal enough” to work for the Employer anymore. The following
day, Charging Party A reported to work and was confronted by the
Employer about the Facebook conversation. He was terminated and
told that he would be hearing from the Employer’s attorney.

     Thereafter, Charging Party B received a letter dated
February 5 from the Employer’s attorney stating that legal
action would be initiated against her unless she retracted her
“defamatory” statements regarding the Employer and its
principals published to the general public on Facebook.

     As noted, under the Meyers cases, the Board’s test for
concerted activity is whether activity is “engaged in with or on
the authority of other employees, and not solely by and on
behalf of the employee himself.” Concerted activity also
includes “circumstances where individual employees seek to
initiate or to induce or to prepare for group action” and where
individual employees bring “truly group complaints” to
management’s attention. Meyers II, 281 NLRB at 887.

     Here, the February 1 conversation on Facebook related to
employees’ shared concerns about a term and condition of
employment--the Employer’s administration of income tax
withholdings. Moreover, prior to the Facebook conversation,
this shared concern had been brought to the Employer’s attention
by at least one employee who specifically noted on Facebook that
she had requested it be discussed at an upcoming management
meeting with employees. Thus, the conversation that transpired
on Facebook not only embodied “truly group complaints” but also
contemplated future group activity.

     We found that the Charging Parties’ statements did not lose
protection either under Atlantic Steel or, as the Employer
asserted, because they were defamatory.

     Applying Atlantic Steel, we found that three of the four
factors weighed in favor of the Charging Parties’ retaining the
protection of the Act. As noted, the Charging
Parties’statements related to a core concern protected under
Section 7. Moreover, the comments were initiated outside of the
workplace during the Charging Parties’ nonworking time, and
neither disrupted operations nor undermined supervisory
authority. Furthermore, although the activity was not provoked
by any unfair labor practice committed by the Employer, the
nature of the Charging Parties’ postings was much less offensive
than other behavior found protected by the Board.

     With regard to the Employer’s allegation of defamation, an
alleged defamatory statement will not lose its protected status
unless it is not only false but maliciously false. Here,
Charging Party A merely indicated that he “liked” the initial
Facebook posting by his former coworker, which accused the
Employer’s owners of not being able to do paperwork correctly.
Charging Party B’s posting was limited to a factually correct
statement that she had an outstanding tax obligation, and her
opinion that one of the Employer’s owners was “[s]uch an
asshole.” The Charging Parties’ Facebook postings, to the
extent that they constituted statements of fact that could be
alleged as defamatory, were not even false, much less
maliciously false under the Board’s standard.

     We also concluded that the Employer’s threats to sue the
Charging Parties for engaging in protected concerted activity
violated Section 8(a)(1). It is well established that an
employer’s threat to sue employees for engaging in Section 7
activity violates the Act because it would reasonably tend to
interfere with the exercise of Section 7 rights. The Board has
historically distinguished the threat of a lawsuit from the
actual filing of a lawsuit and has rejected employers’ attempts
to extend the First Amendment protection accorded to lawsuits to
threats to sue where those threats, as here, were not incidental
to the actual filing of a suit. Thus, we found that the
Employer’s threats to sue the Charging Parties were unlawful,
even if there was a reasonable basis for potential legal action.

     We also considered the lawfulness of the Employer’s
internet/blogging policy. This policy, included in the
Employer’s employee handbook, provided that the employer
supported the free exchange of information and camaraderie among
employees. The policy went on to state that when internet
blogging, chat room discussions, e-mail, text messages, or other
forms of communication extend to employees revealing
confidential and proprietary information about the employer, or
engaging in inappropriate discussions about the company,
management, and/or coworkers, the employee may be violating the
law and is subject to disciplinary action, up to and including
termination.

     An employer violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act through the
maintenance of a work rule if that rule would “reasonably tend
to chill employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.”
Lafayette Park Hotel, 326 NLRB 824, 825 (1998), enfd. 203 F.3d
52 (D.C. Cir. 1999). The Board uses a two-step inquiry to
determine if a work rule would have such an effect. Lutheran
Heritage Village–Livonia, 343 NLRB 646, 647 (2004). First, a
rule is unlawful if it explicitly restricts Section 7
activities. If the rule does not explicitly restrict protected
activities, it is unlawful only upon a showing that: (1)
employees would reasonably construe the language to prohibit
Section 7 activity; (2) the rule was promulgated in response to
union activity; or (3) the rule has been applied to restrict the
exercise of Section 7 rights.

     Applying these standards here, we concluded that the
provision of the Employer’s policy stating that employees are
subject to discipline for engaging in “inappropriate
discussions” about the company, management, and/or coworkers
could reasonably be interpreted to restrain Section 7 activity.
This policy utilized broad terms that would commonly apply to
protected criticism of the Employer’s labor policies, treatment
of employees, and terms and conditions of employment. Moreover,
the policy did not define what was encompassed by the broad term
“inappropriate discussions” by specific examples or limit it in
any way that would exclude Section 7 activity. Absent such
limitations or examples of what was covered, we concluded that
employees would reasonably interpret the rule to prohibit their
discussion of terms and conditions of employment among
themselves or with third parties.


     Employee Who Posted Offensive Tweets Was Not Engaged in
                   Protected Concerted Activity

     In another case, we considered whether the Employer--a
newspaper--violated Section 8(a)(1) when it discharged an
employee--a reporter--for posting unprofessional and
inappropriate tweets to a work-related Twitter account. We
concluded that the employee’s Twitter postings did not involve
protected concerted activity.

     In the spring of 2009, after the Employer encouraged
employees to open Twitter accounts and to use social media to
get news stories out, the employee opened a Twitter account,
picked his screen name, and controlled the content of his
tweets. In the biography section of his account, he stated that
he was a reporter for the Employer’s newspaper, and he included
a link to the newspaper’s website.

     In early 2010, the employee posted a tweet critical of the
paper’s copy editors. The tweet was in response to his concerns
about sports department headlines, but there is no evidence that
he had discussed his concerns with any of his coworkers.

     About a week after that tweet, the Employer’s Human
Resources Director asked the employee why he felt the need to
post his concerns on Twitter instead of simply speaking to
people within the organization, and whether he thought it was
appropriate to post these types of tweets. The employee asked
if the newspaper had a social media policy. The Human Resources
Director replied that the policy was being worked on.

     About a week later, the employee was told that he was
prohibited from airing his grievances or commenting about the
newspaper in any public forum. He replied that he understood.

     He continued to tweet and to use other social media to post
about various matters, including matters relating to his public
safety beat. He did not make public comments about the
newspaper. Between August 27 and September 19, he posted
various tweets about homicides in the city, as well as several
with sexual content.

     On September 21, the employee posted a tweet that
criticized an area television station. The next day, a web
producer for the television station took issue with the tweet
and emailed the paper about it. Thereafter, the employee
emailed the web producer and apologized.

     During the afternoon of September 22, the employee was
called into a meeting with the Managing Editor, the City Editor,
and his team leader. The Managing Editor referred to the tweet
about the television station and then asked the employee why he
was tweeting about homicides. She told him that it was not okay
to make these types of tweets and that they would meet again
when the Executive Editor and Human Resources Director were
there. Until then, she said that he was not allowed to tweet
about anything work-related. The employee asked whether the
paper had a social media policy. She replied that it had not
yet been established and that it was almost complete.

     Two days later, the employee was suspended for three days
without pay. When he returned to work, he was terminated. The
termination letter asserted that he had disregarded guidance to
refrain from using derogatory comments in any social media
forums that could damage the goodwill of the company and that
the Employer had no confidence that he could sustain its
expectation of professional courtesy and mutual respect.

     We found that the employee’s discharge did not violate
Section 8(a)(1) because he was terminated for writing
inappropriate and offensive Twitter postings that did not
involve protected concerted activity. His conduct was not
protected and concerted: it did not relate to the terms and
conditions of his employment or seek to involve other employees
in issues related to employment. Ignoring his Employer’s
warning, he continued to post inappropriate tweets while
covering his beat. He was discharged for this misconduct, which
did not involve protected activity.

     The employee alleged that he was disciplined pursuant to an
unlawful rule that prohibited certain Section 7 activities. We
concluded, however, that the Employer did not implement an
unlawful rule. Although some of the Employer’s statements could
be interpreted to prohibit activities protected by Section 7,
these statements did not constitute orally promulgated,
overbroad “rules”. They were made solely to the employee in the
context of discipline, and in response to specific inappropriate
conduct, and were not communicated to other employees or
proclaimed as new “rules.” In fact, the Employer indicated that
it had not yet developed a written social media rule.


        Bartender Who Posted Facebook Message About Employer’s
      Tipping Policy Was Not Engaged in Concerted Activity

     This case concerned an employee--a bartender--who was
discharged for posting a message on his Facebook page that
referenced the Employer’s tipping policy, in response to a
question from a nonemployee. We found that the employee was not
engaged in concerted activity.

     The Employer operates a restaurant and bar. It maintains
an unwritten policy that waitresses do not share their tips with
the bartenders even though the bartenders help the waitresses
serve food.

     Sometime in the fall of 2010, the employee had a
conversation with a fellow bartender about this tipping policy.
He complained about the policy, and she agreed that it “sucked.”
However, neither they nor any other bartender ever raised the
issue with management.

     In February 2011, the employee had a conversation on
Facebook with a relative. Responding to her query as to how his
night at work had gone, he complained that he hadn’t had a raise
in five years and that he was doing the waitresses’ work without
tips. He also called the Employer’s customers “rednecks” and
stated that he hoped they choked on glass as they drove home
drunk. He did not discuss his posting with any of his
coworkers, and none of them responded to it.

     About a week later, the Employer’s night manager told the
employee that he was probably going to be fired over it. In
May, the employee received a Facebook message from the
Employer’s owner informing him that his services were no longer
required, and the next day, the Employer’s day manager left him
a voice message stating that he was fired for his Facebook
posting about the Employer’s customers.

     As noted above, under the Meyers cases, the Board’s test
for concerted activity is whether activity is “engaged in with
or on the authority of other employees, and not solely by and on
behalf of the employee himself.” We found no evidence of
concerted activity here. Although the employee’s Facebook
posting addressed his terms and conditions of employment, he did
not discuss the posting with his coworkers, and none of them
responded to the posting. There had been no employee meetings
or any attempt to initiate group action concerning the tipping
policy or raises. We also found that this internet
“conversation” did not grow out of the employee’s conversation
with a fellow bartender months earlier about the tipping policy.


     Employee Who Posted on Her Senator’s ‘Wall’ Was Not Engaged
                      in Concerted Activity

     In another case, we considered whether the Employer
unlawfully discharged an employee who had posted messages on the
Facebook page of one of the U.S. Senators who represented her
state. We concluded that the discharge was not unlawful because
the employee was not engaged in concerted activity.

     The Employer provides emergency and nonemergency medical
transportation and fire protection services to municipal,
residential, commercial, and industrial customers. The employee
worked as a dispatcher for the Employer, and her husband was an
EMT.

     The Senator had announced on Facebook that four fire
departments in his state had received federal grants.
Responding to this announcement, the employee wrote comments on
the Senator’s Facebook “wall”. She stated, among other things,
that her Employer had contracts with several fire departments
for emergency medical services because it was the cheapest
service in town and paid employees $2 less than the national
average. She complained that the state was looking for more
cheap companies to farm jobs out to. She also referred to the
fact that the Employer had only two trucks for an entire county,
and she mentioned an incident in which a crew that responded to
a cardiac arrest call did not know how to perform CPR.

     The employee did not discuss her Facebook comments with
other employees before or after posting them. She claimed that
she wanted to let the Senator know that she disagreed with how
emergency medical services were handled in her state and that
her kind of company was not helping the current situation. She
did not think that the Senator could help with her employment
situation. Although she had discussed wages with other
employees after the Employer had announced a wage cap, there is
no evidence that employees had met or organized any group action
to raise wage issues with the Employer.

     Ten days after her Facebook comments, the Employer
terminated her for publicly posting disparaging remarks about
the Employer and confidential information about its response to
a service call. Her termination form also stated that her
comments violated the Employer’s code of ethics and business
conduct policy.
We concluded that the employee here did not engage in any
concerted activity under the Meyers test discussed above. As
noted, she did not discuss her posting with any other employee,
including her spouse. There had been no employee meetings or
any attempt to initiate group action. She was not trying to
take employee complaints to management and admittedly did not
expect the Senator to help her situation. Instead, she was
merely trying to make a public official aware of the condition
of emergency medical services in her state.


     Employee Who Made Facebook Comments About Mentally Disabled
          Clients Was Not Engaged in Concerted Activity

     In this case, we considered whether the Employer--a
nonprofit facility for homeless people--violated the Act when it
discharged an employee for inappropriate Facebook posts that
referred to the Employer’s mentally disabled clients. We
concluded that the employee was not engaged in protected
concerted activity and therefore the discharge was not unlawful.

     In May 2010, the Employer received a grant to develop a new
residential program for residents with significant mental health
issues. The employee, who had been a part-time residential
assistant, became a full-time recovery specialist in the new
program.

     On January 27, 2011, the employee, while working on
the overnight shift, engaged in a “conversation” on her
Facebook wall with two Facebook “friends”. Among other
things, she stated that it was spooky being alone overnight
in a mental institution, that one client was cracking her
up, and that the employee did not know whether the client
was laughing at her, with her, or at the client’s own
voices.

     The two “friends” who commented on the employee’s posts
were not coworkers. The employee was Facebook “friends”,
however, with one of the Employer’s former clients, who saw the
postings and called the Employer to report her concern. As a
result, when the employee reported for work on January 31, she
was terminated. The termination letter referenced the phone
call from the former client and quoted the employee’s January 27
Facebook posts. The letter stated that “[w]e are invested in
protecting people we serve from stigma” and it was not “recovery
oriented” to use the clients’ illnesses for the employee’s
personal amusement. The letter also cited confidentiality
concerns and noted that the employee’s posts were entered when
she should have been working.

     We found that the employee did not engage in any protected
concerted activity under the Meyers cases discussed above. The
employee did not discuss her Facebook posts with any of her
fellow employees, and none of her coworkers responded to the
posts. Moreover, she was not seeking to induce or prepare for
group action, and her activity was not an outgrowth of the
employees’ collective concerns. In fact, her Facebook posts did
not even mention any terms or conditions of employment. The
employee was merely communicating with her personal friends
about what was happening on her shift.


      Employee’s Facebook Postings About Manager Were Individual
                  Gripes, Not Concerted Activity

     In another case, the Employer--a retail store operator--
disciplined a customer service employee for profane Facebook
comments that were critical of local store management. We found
insufficient evidence that the employee engaged in concerted
activity.
      On October 28, after an interaction with a new Assistant
Manager, the employee posted a comment complaining about the
“tyranny” at the store and suggesting that the Employer would
get a wake up call because lots of employees are about to quit.
Several coworkers responded to his comment, expressing emotional
support, and asking why he was so wound up.

     The employee responded to his coworkers’ postings by
asserting that the Assistant Manager was being a “super mega
puta” and complaining about being chewed out for mispriced or
misplaced merchandise. The employee asserted that two other
coworkers also made supportive comments. One of those coworkers
confirmed that she made a “hang in there” type of remark.

     At least one coworker who viewed the employee’s Facebook
postings provided a printout to the Employer’s Store Manager.
On about November 4, the Store Manager told the employee that
his Facebook comments were slander and that he could be fired.
She imposed a one-day paid suspension that precluded promotion
opportunities for 12 months. She also prepared a discipline
report stating that the employee had put bad things on Facebook
about the Employer and Assistant Manager, that the employee’s
behavior was not within company guidelines, and that the
employee would be terminated if such behavior continued.

     The employee subsequently deleted the Facebook postings.

     We concluded that the employee’s Facebook postings were an
expression of an individual gripe, and were not concerted within
the Meyers cases discussed above. They contained no language
suggesting that the employee sought to initiate or induce
coworkers to engage in group action; rather they expressed only
his frustration regarding his individual dispute with the
Assistant Manager over mispriced or misplaced items. Moreover,
none of the coworkers’ Facebook responses indicated that they
had otherwise interpreted the employee’s postings. They merely
indicated that they   had found the employee’s first posting
humorous, asked why   the employee was so “wound up,” or offered
emotional support.    We also found no evidence that established
that the employee’s   postings were the logical outgrowth of prior
group activity.


             Union Violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by Posting
        ‘Interrogation’ Videotape on YouTube and Facebook

     In this case, we found that a Union violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) when it interrogated employees at a nonunion jobsite
about their immigration status, videotaped that interrogation,
and posted an edited version of the videotape on YouTube and the
Local Union’s Facebook page.

     A Union business agent and three Union organizers visited
the worksite of a nonunion subcontractor. The Union
representatives did not identify themselves or reveal their
Union affiliation. One carried a video recorder. After
climbing to the roof where employees were working, the chief
Union spokesman told the employees that they had to ask some
questions, that they were inspecting the job, and that they had
reports of illegal workers. He then asked three employees about
their country of origin, their immigration status, whether they
had “ID’s,” when and how they were hired, how they were paid,
how they paid their taxes, and whether they supplied social
security numbers or the Employer assigned them numbers.

     At various times, the employees tried to resist answering
the questions and return to work, but the Union agents
instructed them not to. They asked the employees for
identification to verify their legal status. When the employees
said that they did not have identification, the Union agents
said that they would return in a half hour and that the
employees better have identification then. The Union agents
then climbed down to the ground level and asked similar
questions of some of the employees there.

     The videotape of this incident runs approximately eighteen
minutes. The Union gave copies of the DVD to various federal
and state government officials. A Local Union member edited the
video down to approximately four minutes and interspersed
written editorial comments. He posted the edited version on
YouTube and on the Facebook page for his Local Union.

     We initially concluded that the Union’s videotaped
“investigation” violated Section 8(b)(1)(A). The Board will
find a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) if a union’s conduct had
a reasonable tendency to restrain or coerce employees in the
exercise of their Section 7 rights. It implicitly has found
that there is a protected right to work for a nonunion employer.
In the Electrical Workers Local 98 cases, the Board ruled that a
union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by interfering with an
employee’s performance of his work duties for a nonunion
employer. See Electrical Workers Local 98 (Tri-M Group, LLC),
350 NLRB 1104, 1105-08 (2007), enfd. 317 F. App’x 269 (3d Cir.
2009); Electrical Workers Local 98 (MCF Services), 342 NLRB 740,
740, 752 (2004), enfd. 251 F. App’x 101 (3d Cir. 2007).

     In addition, union threats to call immigration authorities
or to have employees deported constitute unlawful coercion.
Further, videotaping or photographing employees is unlawful
under Section 8(b)(1)(A) where accompanied by other conduct
indicating that the union would react adversely to employees’
exercising their Section 7 right to refrain from union activity.

     In this case, we found that the Union’s own videotape
demonstrates that its agents engaged in coercive conduct within
the scope of Section 8(b)(1)(A). As described above, Union
agents entered the Employer’s jobsite in a threatening manner,
interfered with its employees’ performance of their work, and
coercively interrogated the employees in circumstances that
reasonably would have led them to believe that they were in
danger of being deported for immigration violations.

     We also concluded that the Union’s posting of an edited
version of the videotape on YouTube and the Local’s Facebook
page was unlawful as well. Any employees who viewed these
postings, either through the YouTube link that expressly named
the Union or through the Local’s Facebook page, were subject to
the same coercive message conveyed to the workers at the
jobsite.


       Provisions of Employer’s Social Media Policy Were Overly
                              Broad

     In another case, we found that several provisions of an
Employer’s social media policy were overly broad as employees
could reasonably construe them to prohibit protected conduct.
     The Employer--a hospital--issued a social media, blogging
and social networking policy, which was later incorporated into
the Employer’s employee handbook. Rule 4 of the policy
prohibited employees from using any social media that may
violate, compromise, or disregard the rights and reasonable
expectations as to privacy or confidentiality of any person or
entity. Rule 5 prohibited any communication or post that
constitutes embarrassment, harassment or defamation of the
hospital or of any hospital employee, officer, board member,
representative, or staff member. Rule 6 contained a similar
prohibition against statements that lack truthfulness or that
might damage the reputation or goodwill of the hospital, its
staff, or employees.

     In this case, several nurses were unhappy with one of their
colleagues who was frequently absent, creating extra demands on
their time and workload. The Charging Party and others had
complained to their manager about this, but he had not done
anything to rectify the situation.

     One weekend, the nurse who was frequently absent called in
sick. Several days later, the Charging Party posted a comment
on her own Facebook page complaining about her colleague’s
recent absence. The Charging Party referred to the colleague’s
pattern of calling in sick or absent and that she had disrupted
the work that weekend. The posting ended with asking anyone
with other details to contact her. One of the Charging Party’s
Facebook “friends” gave a copy of this posting to the Employer.

     About a week later, the Charging Party was reprimanded for
her posting on Facebook, told that she had “talked badly about
the hospital” in violation of the Employer’s social media
policy, and was terminated.

     We concluded that the provisions of the Employer’s social
media policy, as set out above, were overly broad as employees
could reasonably construe them to prohibit protected conduct.

     We concluded that portions of the Employer’s social media
policy were unlawful under the second step of the Lutheran
Heritage test discussed above. We found that Rule 4 provided no
definition or guidance as to what the Employer considered to be
private or confidential. Yet, the Employer relied on the rule
to terminate the Charging Party for her Facebook complaints that
were clearly concerted and related to her working conditions
and, if she was a statutory employee, would be protected under
the Act. Thus, absent any limitations on what was covered, and
in light of the Employer’s application of the rule to protected
conduct, Rule 4 could reasonably be interpreted as prohibiting
protected employee discussion of wages and other terms and
conditions of employment, and was therefore overbroad.

     We also found that Rules 5 and 6 were overbroad. These
included broad terms that would commonly apply to protected
criticism of the Employer’s labor policies or treatment of
employees. The policy did not define these broad terms or limit
them in any way that would exclude Section 7 activity. We
concluded that the Employer’s application and interpretation of
the broad language in Rule 5 to cover the Charging Party’s
expression of frustration over a colleague’s conduct that
frequently resulted in heavier demands on the staff would
reasonably lead employees to conclude that protected complaints
about their working conditions were prohibited.


        Employee Handbook Rules on Social Media Policies Were
                          Overly Broad

     Similarly, we found that another Employer’s handbook rules
pertaining to social media policies were overly broad.
The Employer’s online social networking policy, included in
the Employer’s employee handbook, prohibited employees on their
own time from using micro-blogging features to talk about
company business on their personal accounts; from posting
anything that they would not want their manager or supervisor to
see or that would put their job in jeopardy; from disclosing
inappropriate or sensitive information about the Employer; and
from posting any pictures or comments involving the company or
its employees that could be construed as inappropriate. It also
cautioned that one inappropriate picture or comment taken out of
context could fall into the wrong hands and cost an employee his
or her job.

     We found that the prohibited conduct section of the policy
was unlawful under the second part of the Lutheran Heritage
test, described above, because its prohibitions would reasonably
be construed to prohibit Section 7 activity.

     These prohibitions were broad terms that would commonly
apply to protected discussion about, or criticism of, the
Employer’s labor policies or treatment of employees. Neither
the handbook nor its online social networking policy section
provided any definition or guidance as to what communications
the Employer was referring to that would put employees’ jobs in
jeopardy, or that the Employer would consider inappropriate or
sensitive. Absent such limitations or examples of what was
covered, the rules would reasonably be interpreted as
prohibiting the employees’ right to discuss wages and other
terms and conditions of employment, as well as to communicate
through the posting of pictures.

     The Employer’s policy prohibited employees from using the
company name, address, or other information on their personal
profiles. We found that this prohibition was unlawful. The
Employer offered no explanation as to why employees could not
identify the Employer on their personal profiles, but even
assuming that it had a legitimate interest in preventing
disclosure of certain protected company information to outside
parties, the ban was not narrowly drawn to address those
concerns. Here, moreover, the function that the “personal
profile page” serves in letting employees use the social network
to find and communicate with their coworkers made this
prohibition particularly harmful to their Section 7 rights.


       Policy’s Bar on Pressuring Coworkers to Use Social Media
        Was Lawful, But Other Prohibitions Were Too Broad

     In another case, we looked at three policy guidelines in an
Employer’s social media policy. We found one guideline lawful,
where it was narrowly drawn to restrict harassing conduct and
could not reasonably be construed to interfere with protected
activity. However, we found that two other provisions of the
policy were unlawfully broad.
The Employer operates a supermarket chain. It implemented
a new social media and electronic communication policy, which
stated that it was designed to protect the Employer’s reputation
and that it governed employee communications during both work
and personal time. Guideline 3 of the policy precluded
employees from pressuring their coworkers to connect or
communicate with them via social media. Guideline 5 precluded
employees from revealing, including through the use of
photographs, personal information regarding coworkers, company
clients, partners, or customers without their consent.
Guideline 6 precluded the use of the Employer’s logos and
photographs of the Employer’s store, brand, or product, without
written authorization.

     Applying Lafayette Park Hotel and Lutheran Heritage, as
discussed above, we concluded that the Employer’s admonition in
guideline 3 that no employee should ever be pressured to
“friend” or otherwise connect with a coworker via social media
could not be reasonably read to restrict Section 7 activity.
The rule was sufficiently specific in its prohibition against
pressuring coworkers and clearly applied only to harassing
conduct. It could not reasonably be interpreted to apply more
broadly to restrict employees from attempting to “friend” or
otherwise contact colleagues for the purposes of engaging in
protected concerted or union activity.

     We found, however, that guideline 5’s restriction upon
revealing personal information was unduly broad and could
reasonably be interpreted as restraining Section 7 activity.
Employees have a Section 7 right to discuss their wages and
other terms and conditions of employment. A rule precluding
employees from discussing terms and conditions of employment, or
sharing information about themselves or their fellow employees
with each other or with nonemployees violates Section 8(a)(1).
Absent any limitations or examples of what is covered, we
concluded that the guideline would reasonably be interpreted as
prohibiting employees’ right to discuss wages and other terms
and conditions of employment.

     Similarly, we decided that the prohibition in guideline 6
on using the Employer’s logos or photographs of the Employer’s
stores would restrain an employee from engaging in protected
activity. For example, an employee could not post pictures of
employees carrying a picket sign depicting the Employer’s name,
peacefully handbill in front of a store, or wear a t-shirt
portraying the Employer’s logo in connection with a protest
involving terms and conditions of employment.
Employer’s Rule Restricting Employee Contacts with Media
                            Was Lawful

     Another case presented a challenge to an Employer’s policy
restricting employees’ contacts with the media. Applying the
Lutheran Heritage standard, discussed above, we concluded that
the policy could not reasonably be interpreted to prohibit
employees from speaking on their own behalf with reporters and
therefore did not violate the Act.

     The Employer--a grocery store chain--included a media
relations and press interviews policy in its employee handbook.
Under this policy, the public affairs office was responsible for
all official external communications; employees were expected to
maintain confidentiality about sensitive information; and it was
imperative that one person should speak for the Employer to
deliver an appropriate message and avoid giving misinformation.

     The policy also prohibited employees from using cameras in
the store or parking lot without prior approval from the
corporate office. In addition, employees were directed to
respond to all media questions by replying that they were not
authorized to comment for the Employer or did not have the
information being sought, to take the name and number of the
media organization, and to call the public affairs office.

     It is well established that employees have a Section 7
right to speak to reporters about wages and other terms and
conditions of employment. See Kinder-Care Learning Centers, 299
NLRB 1171, 1172 (1990). Therefore, while an employer has a
legitimate business interest in limiting who can make official
statements for the company, its rules cannot be so broadly
worded that employees would reasonably think that they were
prohibited from exercising their Section 7 right to speak with
reporters about working conditions.

     However, a media policy that simply seeks to ensure a
consistent, controlled company message and limits employee
contact with the media only to the extent necessary to effect
that result cannot be reasonably interpreted to restrict Section
7 communications. In AT&T Broadband & Internet Services, Case
12-CA-21220 at 10, Advice Memorandum dated November 6, 2001, we
determined that a policy that stated that “the company will
respond to the news media in a timely and professional manner
only through the designated spokespersons” could not be read as
“a blanket prohibition” against all employee contact with the
media. Additional language in the rule referring to “crisis
situations” and ensuring “timely and professional” response to
media inquiries further clarified that the rule was not meant to
apply to Section 7 activities.

     Similarly, we concluded here that the Employer’s media
policy repeatedly stated that the purpose of the policy was to
ensure that only one person spoke for the company. Although
employees were instructed to answer all media/reporter questions
in a particular way, the required responses did not convey the
impression that employees could not speak out on their terms and
conditions of employment.

     We also concluded that the Employer’s rule against allowing
cameras in the store was not unlawfully overbroad. The
prohibition of cameras followed and preceded instructions about
how to deal with news media and events drawing outside
attention. The only reasonable interpretation of this rule was
that the cameras referred to are news cameras, not employees’
own personal cameras, and therefore this part of the media
policy would not chill employees’ Section 7 conduct.

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Can I Be Fired for Facebook? Looking at the Legality of Social Media Terminat...
Can I Be Fired for Facebook? Looking at the Legality of Social Media Terminat...Can I Be Fired for Facebook? Looking at the Legality of Social Media Terminat...
Can I Be Fired for Facebook? Looking at the Legality of Social Media Terminat...Gordon Schmidt
 
O'Connor & Schmidt (2015) Facebook Fired: Teaching students to recognize and ...
O'Connor & Schmidt (2015) Facebook Fired: Teaching students to recognize and ...O'Connor & Schmidt (2015) Facebook Fired: Teaching students to recognize and ...
O'Connor & Schmidt (2015) Facebook Fired: Teaching students to recognize and ...Gordon Schmidt
 
Social media & data protection policy v1.0 141112
Social media & data protection policy v1.0 141112 Social media & data protection policy v1.0 141112
Social media & data protection policy v1.0 141112 Dave Shannon
 
Gordon Schmidt (2012) IPFW SHRM Presentation: The Benefits And Pitfalls Of On...
Gordon Schmidt (2012) IPFW SHRM Presentation: The Benefits And Pitfalls Of On...Gordon Schmidt (2012) IPFW SHRM Presentation: The Benefits And Pitfalls Of On...
Gordon Schmidt (2012) IPFW SHRM Presentation: The Benefits And Pitfalls Of On...Gordon Schmidt
 
AoIR #15 Conference Sth Korea 2014
AoIR #15 Conference Sth Korea 2014AoIR #15 Conference Sth Korea 2014
AoIR #15 Conference Sth Korea 2014Jacinta Buchbach
 
Social networking issues for HR
Social networking issues for HRSocial networking issues for HR
Social networking issues for HRYolk Recruitment
 
Linkedin P2 Final 15feb11
Linkedin P2 Final 15feb11Linkedin P2 Final 15feb11
Linkedin P2 Final 15feb11ehlung
 
Krugel's 7 25-13 social media pp
Krugel's 7 25-13 social media ppKrugel's 7 25-13 social media pp
Krugel's 7 25-13 social media ppCharles Krugel
 

Was ist angesagt? (9)

Can I Be Fired for Facebook? Looking at the Legality of Social Media Terminat...
Can I Be Fired for Facebook? Looking at the Legality of Social Media Terminat...Can I Be Fired for Facebook? Looking at the Legality of Social Media Terminat...
Can I Be Fired for Facebook? Looking at the Legality of Social Media Terminat...
 
O'Connor & Schmidt (2015) Facebook Fired: Teaching students to recognize and ...
O'Connor & Schmidt (2015) Facebook Fired: Teaching students to recognize and ...O'Connor & Schmidt (2015) Facebook Fired: Teaching students to recognize and ...
O'Connor & Schmidt (2015) Facebook Fired: Teaching students to recognize and ...
 
Social media & data protection policy v1.0 141112
Social media & data protection policy v1.0 141112 Social media & data protection policy v1.0 141112
Social media & data protection policy v1.0 141112
 
Gordon Schmidt (2012) IPFW SHRM Presentation: The Benefits And Pitfalls Of On...
Gordon Schmidt (2012) IPFW SHRM Presentation: The Benefits And Pitfalls Of On...Gordon Schmidt (2012) IPFW SHRM Presentation: The Benefits And Pitfalls Of On...
Gordon Schmidt (2012) IPFW SHRM Presentation: The Benefits And Pitfalls Of On...
 
AoIR #15 Conference Sth Korea 2014
AoIR #15 Conference Sth Korea 2014AoIR #15 Conference Sth Korea 2014
AoIR #15 Conference Sth Korea 2014
 
Social networking issues for HR
Social networking issues for HRSocial networking issues for HR
Social networking issues for HR
 
Linkedin P2 Final 15feb11
Linkedin P2 Final 15feb11Linkedin P2 Final 15feb11
Linkedin P2 Final 15feb11
 
Krugel's 7 25-13 social media pp
Krugel's 7 25-13 social media ppKrugel's 7 25-13 social media pp
Krugel's 7 25-13 social media pp
 
Congradulations, Now What?
Congradulations, Now What?Congradulations, Now What?
Congradulations, Now What?
 

Andere mochten auch

Climate vis jewellery
Climate vis jewelleryClimate vis jewellery
Climate vis jewelleryRuth Ellison
 
European Communication Monitor 2011
European Communication Monitor 2011European Communication Monitor 2011
European Communication Monitor 2011Krishna De
 
Itajai sc-brasil
Itajai sc-brasilItajai sc-brasil
Itajai sc-brasilHelga
 
Online persuasion and compliance social influence on the internet and beyond
Online persuasion and compliance   social influence on the internet and beyondOnline persuasion and compliance   social influence on the internet and beyond
Online persuasion and compliance social influence on the internet and beyondKrishna De
 
01 story and history ot
01 story and history ot01 story and history ot
01 story and history otchucho1943
 
04. обличение и возмездие
04. обличение и возмездие04. обличение и возмездие
04. обличение и возмездиеchucho1943
 
09 Believing In The Son
09 Believing In The Son09 Believing In The Son
09 Believing In The Sonchucho1943
 
Technology Trends 2017
Technology Trends 2017Technology Trends 2017
Technology Trends 2017Krishna De
 

Andere mochten auch (8)

Climate vis jewellery
Climate vis jewelleryClimate vis jewellery
Climate vis jewellery
 
European Communication Monitor 2011
European Communication Monitor 2011European Communication Monitor 2011
European Communication Monitor 2011
 
Itajai sc-brasil
Itajai sc-brasilItajai sc-brasil
Itajai sc-brasil
 
Online persuasion and compliance social influence on the internet and beyond
Online persuasion and compliance   social influence on the internet and beyondOnline persuasion and compliance   social influence on the internet and beyond
Online persuasion and compliance social influence on the internet and beyond
 
01 story and history ot
01 story and history ot01 story and history ot
01 story and history ot
 
04. обличение и возмездие
04. обличение и возмездие04. обличение и возмездие
04. обличение и возмездие
 
09 Believing In The Son
09 Believing In The Son09 Believing In The Son
09 Believing In The Son
 
Technology Trends 2017
Technology Trends 2017Technology Trends 2017
Technology Trends 2017
 

Ähnlich wie 2012 08 11 Report of the Acting General Counsel concerning social media cases

2012 01 24 Report of the Acting General Counsel concerning social media cases
2012 01 24 Report of the Acting General Counsel concerning social media cases2012 01 24 Report of the Acting General Counsel concerning social media cases
2012 01 24 Report of the Acting General Counsel concerning social media casesKrishna De
 
Social Media for Employers: Tips and Guidance
Social Media for Employers:  Tips and GuidanceSocial Media for Employers:  Tips and Guidance
Social Media for Employers: Tips and GuidanceDavid Kight
 
Managing employee online behavior presentation 111715
Managing employee online behavior presentation 111715Managing employee online behavior presentation 111715
Managing employee online behavior presentation 111715Ohio Restaurant Association
 
Managing Social Media Risks for Municpalities
Managing Social Media Risks for MunicpalitiesManaging Social Media Risks for Municpalities
Managing Social Media Risks for MunicpalitiesDan Michaluk
 
Mfoa social media presentation
Mfoa social media presentationMfoa social media presentation
Mfoa social media presentationDan Michaluk
 
Mfoa social media presentation
Mfoa social media presentationMfoa social media presentation
Mfoa social media presentationDan Michaluk
 
Schmidt (2011) How Social Media Is Changing The Employment Relationship
Schmidt (2011) How Social Media Is Changing The Employment RelationshipSchmidt (2011) How Social Media Is Changing The Employment Relationship
Schmidt (2011) How Social Media Is Changing The Employment RelationshipGordon Schmidt
 
Mfoa social media presentation 2
Mfoa social media presentation 2Mfoa social media presentation 2
Mfoa social media presentation 2Dan Michaluk
 
2017 legal update for Williams supervisors
2017 legal update for Williams supervisors2017 legal update for Williams supervisors
2017 legal update for Williams supervisorseph-hr
 
Conducting Internal Investigations that Are Trusted by Employees
Conducting Internal Investigations that Are Trusted by EmployeesConducting Internal Investigations that Are Trusted by Employees
Conducting Internal Investigations that Are Trusted by EmployeesWorkplace Investigations Group
 
Social Media and the Workplace
Social Media and the WorkplaceSocial Media and the Workplace
Social Media and the WorkplaceAllisha Anderson
 
Human Resources On Facebook Mse
Human Resources On Facebook MseHuman Resources On Facebook Mse
Human Resources On Facebook MseMelanie Echavarria
 
Energy Audit Retrofit Contract Legalities Pittfalls
Energy Audit Retrofit Contract Legalities PittfallsEnergy Audit Retrofit Contract Legalities Pittfalls
Energy Audit Retrofit Contract Legalities PittfallsAmy Shriner
 
Residents Working 24-Hour Analysis
Residents Working 24-Hour AnalysisResidents Working 24-Hour Analysis
Residents Working 24-Hour AnalysisLakeisha Jones
 
Social Media Etiquette For Businesses
Social Media Etiquette For BusinessesSocial Media Etiquette For Businesses
Social Media Etiquette For Businesseschadhatmaker
 
Ice Cream Paper Teacher Created Resources, Superki
Ice Cream Paper Teacher Created Resources, SuperkiIce Cream Paper Teacher Created Resources, Superki
Ice Cream Paper Teacher Created Resources, SuperkiAsia Smith
 
Running head SOCIAL WORK1SOCIAL WORK5Social WorkN.docx
Running head SOCIAL WORK1SOCIAL WORK5Social WorkN.docxRunning head SOCIAL WORK1SOCIAL WORK5Social WorkN.docx
Running head SOCIAL WORK1SOCIAL WORK5Social WorkN.docxtodd521
 

Ähnlich wie 2012 08 11 Report of the Acting General Counsel concerning social media cases (20)

2012 01 24 Report of the Acting General Counsel concerning social media cases
2012 01 24 Report of the Acting General Counsel concerning social media cases2012 01 24 Report of the Acting General Counsel concerning social media cases
2012 01 24 Report of the Acting General Counsel concerning social media cases
 
Social Media for Employers: Tips and Guidance
Social Media for Employers:  Tips and GuidanceSocial Media for Employers:  Tips and Guidance
Social Media for Employers: Tips and Guidance
 
Facebook Firings: Think Before You Leap
Facebook Firings: Think Before You LeapFacebook Firings: Think Before You Leap
Facebook Firings: Think Before You Leap
 
Managing employee online behavior presentation 111715
Managing employee online behavior presentation 111715Managing employee online behavior presentation 111715
Managing employee online behavior presentation 111715
 
Managing Social Media Risks for Municpalities
Managing Social Media Risks for MunicpalitiesManaging Social Media Risks for Municpalities
Managing Social Media Risks for Municpalities
 
Mfoa social media presentation
Mfoa social media presentationMfoa social media presentation
Mfoa social media presentation
 
Mfoa social media presentation
Mfoa social media presentationMfoa social media presentation
Mfoa social media presentation
 
Schmidt (2011) How Social Media Is Changing The Employment Relationship
Schmidt (2011) How Social Media Is Changing The Employment RelationshipSchmidt (2011) How Social Media Is Changing The Employment Relationship
Schmidt (2011) How Social Media Is Changing The Employment Relationship
 
Mfoa social media presentation 2
Mfoa social media presentation 2Mfoa social media presentation 2
Mfoa social media presentation 2
 
2017 legal update for Williams supervisors
2017 legal update for Williams supervisors2017 legal update for Williams supervisors
2017 legal update for Williams supervisors
 
Conducting Internal Investigations that Are Trusted by Employees
Conducting Internal Investigations that Are Trusted by EmployeesConducting Internal Investigations that Are Trusted by Employees
Conducting Internal Investigations that Are Trusted by Employees
 
Michael Davey
Michael DaveyMichael Davey
Michael Davey
 
Social Media and the Workplace
Social Media and the WorkplaceSocial Media and the Workplace
Social Media and the Workplace
 
Human Resources On Facebook Mse
Human Resources On Facebook MseHuman Resources On Facebook Mse
Human Resources On Facebook Mse
 
Energy Audit Retrofit Contract Legalities Pittfalls
Energy Audit Retrofit Contract Legalities PittfallsEnergy Audit Retrofit Contract Legalities Pittfalls
Energy Audit Retrofit Contract Legalities Pittfalls
 
Residents Working 24-Hour Analysis
Residents Working 24-Hour AnalysisResidents Working 24-Hour Analysis
Residents Working 24-Hour Analysis
 
Social Media Etiquette For Businesses
Social Media Etiquette For BusinessesSocial Media Etiquette For Businesses
Social Media Etiquette For Businesses
 
Ice Cream Paper Teacher Created Resources, Superki
Ice Cream Paper Teacher Created Resources, SuperkiIce Cream Paper Teacher Created Resources, Superki
Ice Cream Paper Teacher Created Resources, Superki
 
Running head SOCIAL WORK1SOCIAL WORK5Social WorkN.docx
Running head SOCIAL WORK1SOCIAL WORK5Social WorkN.docxRunning head SOCIAL WORK1SOCIAL WORK5Social WorkN.docx
Running head SOCIAL WORK1SOCIAL WORK5Social WorkN.docx
 
Social Work Report Sample
Social Work Report SampleSocial Work Report Sample
Social Work Report Sample
 

Mehr von Krishna De

Live Stream Insiders EP165: Content Topics And Trends For Your 2019 Live Streams
Live Stream Insiders EP165: Content Topics And Trends For Your 2019 Live StreamsLive Stream Insiders EP165: Content Topics And Trends For Your 2019 Live Streams
Live Stream Insiders EP165: Content Topics And Trends For Your 2019 Live StreamsKrishna De
 
Live Stream Insiders 10 June 2018
Live Stream Insiders 10 June 2018Live Stream Insiders 10 June 2018
Live Stream Insiders 10 June 2018Krishna De
 
Live Stream News Week Commencing 26 March 2017
Live Stream News Week Commencing 26 March 2017Live Stream News Week Commencing 26 March 2017
Live Stream News Week Commencing 26 March 2017Krishna De
 
How to use Facebook Live to bring your brand to life
How to use Facebook Live to bring your brand to lifeHow to use Facebook Live to bring your brand to life
How to use Facebook Live to bring your brand to lifeKrishna De
 
Deloitte mobile consumer report UK 2016
Deloitte mobile consumer report UK 2016Deloitte mobile consumer report UK 2016
Deloitte mobile consumer report UK 2016Krishna De
 
Ireland mobile consumer survey by Deloitte 2016
Ireland mobile consumer survey by Deloitte 2016Ireland mobile consumer survey by Deloitte 2016
Ireland mobile consumer survey by Deloitte 2016Krishna De
 
Ericsson mobility report November 2016 Internet of Things
Ericsson mobility report November 2016 Internet of ThingsEricsson mobility report November 2016 Internet of Things
Ericsson mobility report November 2016 Internet of ThingsKrishna De
 
Ericsson mobility report November 2016 on live streaming trends
Ericsson mobility report November 2016 on live streaming trendsEricsson mobility report November 2016 on live streaming trends
Ericsson mobility report November 2016 on live streaming trendsKrishna De
 
UK Business Digital Index 2016
UK Business Digital Index 2016UK Business Digital Index 2016
UK Business Digital Index 2016Krishna De
 
Draft report on Harmful Communications and Digital Safety in Ireland
Draft report on Harmful Communications and Digital Safety in IrelandDraft report on Harmful Communications and Digital Safety in Ireland
Draft report on Harmful Communications and Digital Safety in IrelandKrishna De
 
Digital insights report 2016 Ireland by Virgin Media
Digital insights report 2016 Ireland by Virgin MediaDigital insights report 2016 Ireland by Virgin Media
Digital insights report 2016 Ireland by Virgin MediaKrishna De
 
UK digital marketing overview June 2016
UK digital marketing overview June 2016UK digital marketing overview June 2016
UK digital marketing overview June 2016Krishna De
 
Facebook Branded Content Guidelines 2016
Facebook Branded Content Guidelines 2016Facebook Branded Content Guidelines 2016
Facebook Branded Content Guidelines 2016Krishna De
 
CMA UK open letter to retailers about online reviews
CMA UK open letter to retailers about online reviewsCMA UK open letter to retailers about online reviews
CMA UK open letter to retailers about online reviewsKrishna De
 
EU Guidelines On The Right To Be Forgotten Implementation November 2014
EU Guidelines On The Right To Be Forgotten Implementation November 2014EU Guidelines On The Right To Be Forgotten Implementation November 2014
EU Guidelines On The Right To Be Forgotten Implementation November 2014Krishna De
 
Into Focus - a benchmark guide to effective nonprofit video
Into Focus - a benchmark guide to effective nonprofit videoInto Focus - a benchmark guide to effective nonprofit video
Into Focus - a benchmark guide to effective nonprofit videoKrishna De
 
Net Children Go Mobile European Report February 2014
Net Children Go Mobile European Report February 2014Net Children Go Mobile European Report February 2014
Net Children Go Mobile European Report February 2014Krishna De
 
Net Children Go Mobile Initial Findings From Ireland
Net Children Go Mobile Initial Findings From IrelandNet Children Go Mobile Initial Findings From Ireland
Net Children Go Mobile Initial Findings From IrelandKrishna De
 
An exploration of e-safety messages to young people, parents and practitioner...
An exploration of e-safety messages to young people, parents and practitioner...An exploration of e-safety messages to young people, parents and practitioner...
An exploration of e-safety messages to young people, parents and practitioner...Krishna De
 
Safer Internet Day 2014 LiveStream Schedule #SID2014
Safer Internet Day 2014 LiveStream Schedule #SID2014Safer Internet Day 2014 LiveStream Schedule #SID2014
Safer Internet Day 2014 LiveStream Schedule #SID2014Krishna De
 

Mehr von Krishna De (20)

Live Stream Insiders EP165: Content Topics And Trends For Your 2019 Live Streams
Live Stream Insiders EP165: Content Topics And Trends For Your 2019 Live StreamsLive Stream Insiders EP165: Content Topics And Trends For Your 2019 Live Streams
Live Stream Insiders EP165: Content Topics And Trends For Your 2019 Live Streams
 
Live Stream Insiders 10 June 2018
Live Stream Insiders 10 June 2018Live Stream Insiders 10 June 2018
Live Stream Insiders 10 June 2018
 
Live Stream News Week Commencing 26 March 2017
Live Stream News Week Commencing 26 March 2017Live Stream News Week Commencing 26 March 2017
Live Stream News Week Commencing 26 March 2017
 
How to use Facebook Live to bring your brand to life
How to use Facebook Live to bring your brand to lifeHow to use Facebook Live to bring your brand to life
How to use Facebook Live to bring your brand to life
 
Deloitte mobile consumer report UK 2016
Deloitte mobile consumer report UK 2016Deloitte mobile consumer report UK 2016
Deloitte mobile consumer report UK 2016
 
Ireland mobile consumer survey by Deloitte 2016
Ireland mobile consumer survey by Deloitte 2016Ireland mobile consumer survey by Deloitte 2016
Ireland mobile consumer survey by Deloitte 2016
 
Ericsson mobility report November 2016 Internet of Things
Ericsson mobility report November 2016 Internet of ThingsEricsson mobility report November 2016 Internet of Things
Ericsson mobility report November 2016 Internet of Things
 
Ericsson mobility report November 2016 on live streaming trends
Ericsson mobility report November 2016 on live streaming trendsEricsson mobility report November 2016 on live streaming trends
Ericsson mobility report November 2016 on live streaming trends
 
UK Business Digital Index 2016
UK Business Digital Index 2016UK Business Digital Index 2016
UK Business Digital Index 2016
 
Draft report on Harmful Communications and Digital Safety in Ireland
Draft report on Harmful Communications and Digital Safety in IrelandDraft report on Harmful Communications and Digital Safety in Ireland
Draft report on Harmful Communications and Digital Safety in Ireland
 
Digital insights report 2016 Ireland by Virgin Media
Digital insights report 2016 Ireland by Virgin MediaDigital insights report 2016 Ireland by Virgin Media
Digital insights report 2016 Ireland by Virgin Media
 
UK digital marketing overview June 2016
UK digital marketing overview June 2016UK digital marketing overview June 2016
UK digital marketing overview June 2016
 
Facebook Branded Content Guidelines 2016
Facebook Branded Content Guidelines 2016Facebook Branded Content Guidelines 2016
Facebook Branded Content Guidelines 2016
 
CMA UK open letter to retailers about online reviews
CMA UK open letter to retailers about online reviewsCMA UK open letter to retailers about online reviews
CMA UK open letter to retailers about online reviews
 
EU Guidelines On The Right To Be Forgotten Implementation November 2014
EU Guidelines On The Right To Be Forgotten Implementation November 2014EU Guidelines On The Right To Be Forgotten Implementation November 2014
EU Guidelines On The Right To Be Forgotten Implementation November 2014
 
Into Focus - a benchmark guide to effective nonprofit video
Into Focus - a benchmark guide to effective nonprofit videoInto Focus - a benchmark guide to effective nonprofit video
Into Focus - a benchmark guide to effective nonprofit video
 
Net Children Go Mobile European Report February 2014
Net Children Go Mobile European Report February 2014Net Children Go Mobile European Report February 2014
Net Children Go Mobile European Report February 2014
 
Net Children Go Mobile Initial Findings From Ireland
Net Children Go Mobile Initial Findings From IrelandNet Children Go Mobile Initial Findings From Ireland
Net Children Go Mobile Initial Findings From Ireland
 
An exploration of e-safety messages to young people, parents and practitioner...
An exploration of e-safety messages to young people, parents and practitioner...An exploration of e-safety messages to young people, parents and practitioner...
An exploration of e-safety messages to young people, parents and practitioner...
 
Safer Internet Day 2014 LiveStream Schedule #SID2014
Safer Internet Day 2014 LiveStream Schedule #SID2014Safer Internet Day 2014 LiveStream Schedule #SID2014
Safer Internet Day 2014 LiveStream Schedule #SID2014
 

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet- 2024
 Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet-  2024 Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet-  2024
Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet- 2024Stephan Koning
 
Boat Trailers Market PPT: Growth, Outlook, Demand, Keyplayer Analysis and Opp...
Boat Trailers Market PPT: Growth, Outlook, Demand, Keyplayer Analysis and Opp...Boat Trailers Market PPT: Growth, Outlook, Demand, Keyplayer Analysis and Opp...
Boat Trailers Market PPT: Growth, Outlook, Demand, Keyplayer Analysis and Opp...IMARC Group
 
Plano de marketing- inglês em formato ppt
Plano de marketing- inglês  em formato pptPlano de marketing- inglês  em formato ppt
Plano de marketing- inglês em formato pptElizangelaSoaresdaCo
 
MC Heights construction company in Jhang
MC Heights construction company in JhangMC Heights construction company in Jhang
MC Heights construction company in Jhangmcgroupjeya
 
Project Brief & Information Architecture Report
Project Brief & Information Architecture ReportProject Brief & Information Architecture Report
Project Brief & Information Architecture Reportamberjiles31
 
HELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptx
HELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptxHELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptx
HELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptxHelene Heckrotte
 
Live-Streaming in the Music Industry Webinar
Live-Streaming in the Music Industry WebinarLive-Streaming in the Music Industry Webinar
Live-Streaming in the Music Industry WebinarNathanielSchmuck
 
Q2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for Business
Q2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for BusinessQ2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for Business
Q2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for BusinessAPCO
 
A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.
A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.
A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.mcshagufta46
 
Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024Borderless Access
 
Tata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerak
Tata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerakTata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerak
Tata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerakEditores1
 
Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer.pdf
Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer.pdfChicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer.pdf
Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer.pdfSourav Sikder
 
Graham and Doddsville - Issue 1 - Winter 2006 (1).pdf
Graham and Doddsville - Issue 1 - Winter 2006 (1).pdfGraham and Doddsville - Issue 1 - Winter 2006 (1).pdf
Graham and Doddsville - Issue 1 - Winter 2006 (1).pdfAnhNguyen97152
 
BCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John Meulemans
BCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John MeulemansBCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John Meulemans
BCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John MeulemansBBPMedia1
 
To Create Your Own Wig Online To Create Your Own Wig Online
To Create Your Own Wig Online  To Create Your Own Wig OnlineTo Create Your Own Wig Online  To Create Your Own Wig Online
To Create Your Own Wig Online To Create Your Own Wig Onlinelng ths
 
MoneyBridge Pitch Deck - Investor Presentation
MoneyBridge Pitch Deck - Investor PresentationMoneyBridge Pitch Deck - Investor Presentation
MoneyBridge Pitch Deck - Investor Presentationbaron83
 
Borderless Access - Global B2B Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global B2B Panel book-unlock 2024Borderless Access - Global B2B Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global B2B Panel book-unlock 2024Borderless Access
 
Upgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking Applications
Upgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking ApplicationsUpgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking Applications
Upgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking ApplicationsIntellect Design Arena Ltd
 
NASA CoCEI Scaling Strategy - November 2023
NASA CoCEI Scaling Strategy - November 2023NASA CoCEI Scaling Strategy - November 2023
NASA CoCEI Scaling Strategy - November 2023Steve Rader
 

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet- 2024
 Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet-  2024 Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet-  2024
Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet- 2024
 
Boat Trailers Market PPT: Growth, Outlook, Demand, Keyplayer Analysis and Opp...
Boat Trailers Market PPT: Growth, Outlook, Demand, Keyplayer Analysis and Opp...Boat Trailers Market PPT: Growth, Outlook, Demand, Keyplayer Analysis and Opp...
Boat Trailers Market PPT: Growth, Outlook, Demand, Keyplayer Analysis and Opp...
 
Plano de marketing- inglês em formato ppt
Plano de marketing- inglês  em formato pptPlano de marketing- inglês  em formato ppt
Plano de marketing- inglês em formato ppt
 
MC Heights construction company in Jhang
MC Heights construction company in JhangMC Heights construction company in Jhang
MC Heights construction company in Jhang
 
Project Brief & Information Architecture Report
Project Brief & Information Architecture ReportProject Brief & Information Architecture Report
Project Brief & Information Architecture Report
 
HELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptx
HELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptxHELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptx
HELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptx
 
Live-Streaming in the Music Industry Webinar
Live-Streaming in the Music Industry WebinarLive-Streaming in the Music Industry Webinar
Live-Streaming in the Music Industry Webinar
 
Q2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for Business
Q2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for BusinessQ2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for Business
Q2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for Business
 
A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.
A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.
A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.
 
Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024
 
Tata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerak
Tata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerakTata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerak
Tata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerak
 
Investment Opportunity for Thailand's Automotive & EV Industries
Investment Opportunity for Thailand's Automotive & EV IndustriesInvestment Opportunity for Thailand's Automotive & EV Industries
Investment Opportunity for Thailand's Automotive & EV Industries
 
Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer.pdf
Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer.pdfChicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer.pdf
Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer.pdf
 
Graham and Doddsville - Issue 1 - Winter 2006 (1).pdf
Graham and Doddsville - Issue 1 - Winter 2006 (1).pdfGraham and Doddsville - Issue 1 - Winter 2006 (1).pdf
Graham and Doddsville - Issue 1 - Winter 2006 (1).pdf
 
BCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John Meulemans
BCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John MeulemansBCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John Meulemans
BCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John Meulemans
 
To Create Your Own Wig Online To Create Your Own Wig Online
To Create Your Own Wig Online  To Create Your Own Wig OnlineTo Create Your Own Wig Online  To Create Your Own Wig Online
To Create Your Own Wig Online To Create Your Own Wig Online
 
MoneyBridge Pitch Deck - Investor Presentation
MoneyBridge Pitch Deck - Investor PresentationMoneyBridge Pitch Deck - Investor Presentation
MoneyBridge Pitch Deck - Investor Presentation
 
Borderless Access - Global B2B Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global B2B Panel book-unlock 2024Borderless Access - Global B2B Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global B2B Panel book-unlock 2024
 
Upgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking Applications
Upgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking ApplicationsUpgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking Applications
Upgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking Applications
 
NASA CoCEI Scaling Strategy - November 2023
NASA CoCEI Scaling Strategy - November 2023NASA CoCEI Scaling Strategy - November 2023
NASA CoCEI Scaling Strategy - November 2023
 

2012 08 11 Report of the Acting General Counsel concerning social media cases

  • 1. OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL Division of Operations-Management MEMORANDUM OM 11-74 August 18, 2011 To: All Regional Directors, Officers-in-Charge, and Resident Officers From: Anne Purcell, Associate General Counsel Subject: Report of the Acting General Counsel Concerning Social Media Cases Attached is a report of the Acting General Counsel concerning social media cases within the last year. /s/ A.P. Attachment cc: NLRBU Release to the Public MEMORANDUM OM 11-74
  • 2. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL WASHINGTON, D.C. 20570 REPORT OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL During my term as Acting General Counsel, I have endeavored to keep the labor-management community fully aware of the activities of my office. It is my hope that this openness will encourage compliance with the Act and cooperation with Agency personnel. As part of this goal, I continue the practice of issuing periodic reports of cases raising significant legal or policy issues. This report presents recent case developments arising in the context of today’s social media. Social media include various online technology tools that enable people to communicate easily via the internet to share information and resources. These tools can encompass text, audio, video, images, podcasts, and other multimedia communications. Recent developments in the Office of the General Counsel have presented emerging issues concerning the protected and/or concerted nature of employees’ Facebook and Twitter postings, the coercive impact of a union’s Facebook and YouTube postings, and the lawfulness of employers’ social media policies and rules. This report discusses these cases, as well as a recent case involving an employer’s policy restricting employee contacts with the media. All of these cases were decided upon a request for advice from a Regional Director. I hope that this report will be of assistance to practitioners and human resource professionals. ___________/s/_____________ Lafe E. Solomon Acting General Counsel
  • 3. Employees’ Facebook Postings About Job Performance and Staffing Were Protected Concerted Activity In one case, we found that an Employer--a nonprofit social services provider--unlawfully discharged five employees who had posted comments on Facebook relating to allegations of poor job performance previously expressed by one of their coworkers--a domestic violence advocate. We concluded that the discharged employees were engaged in protected concerted activity. In or around July 2010, the advocate began complaining to one particular coworker that clients did not want to seek services from the Employer. Similarly, in August she had conversations with other coworkers in which she criticized the work done by the Employer’s employees. She also sent regular text messages to the one particular coworker, criticizing other employees’ work performance and complaining about workload issues. In early October, the advocate discussed several client and workload issues with this one coworker, with the advocate asserting, among other things, that the coworker had not properly assisted a client. They exchanged multiple text messages related to these issues. During the final exchange of messages, the advocate said that the Employer’s Executive Director would settle their differences. The one coworker then talked to another employee about what she considered to be a constant barrage of text messages from the advocate criticizing the job performance of the Employer’s employees. This employee suggested that she meet with the Employer’s Executive Director. To prepare for this meeting, the one coworker posted on Facebook that the advocate felt that her coworkers did not help the Employer’s clients enough. She then asked her coworkers how they felt about it. The four coworkers who were later discharged and the advocate responded to the Facebook posting. That evening, the advocate reported the Facebook conversation to the Employer’s Executive Director, indicating that she considered her coworkers’ Facebook comments to be “cyber-bullying” and harassing behavior. On the next workday, the coworker tried to meet with the Executive Director. The Executive Director said that she was busy, but that she would call when she was available. A few hours later, the coworker was called to the Executive Director’s office and was terminated. That same day, the Employer terminated the four other employees who had posted Facebook responses to their coworker’s initial solicitation.
  • 4. We first concluded that the discharged employees’ postings on Facebook were concerted activity under the Meyers cases. Meyers Industries (Meyers I), 268 NLRB 493 (1984), revd. sub nom Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985), cert. denied 474 U.S. 948 (1985), on remand Meyers Industries (Meyers II), 281 NLRB 882 (1986), affd. sub nom Prill v. NLRB, 835 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987), cert. denied 487 U.S. 1205 (1988). In these cases, the Board explained that an activity is concerted when an employee acts “with or on the authority of other employees, and not solely by and on behalf of the employee himself.” We decided that the Facebook discussion here was a textbook example of concerted activity, even though it transpired on a social network platform. The discussion was initiated by the one coworker in an appeal to her coworkers for assistance. Through Facebook, she surveyed her coworkers on the issue of job performance to prepare for an anticipated meeting with the Executive Director, planned at the suggestion of another employee. The resulting conversation among coworkers about job performance and staffing level issues was therefore concerted activity. We next found that the discharged employees were engaged in protected activity. The Board has found employee statements relating to employee staffing levels protected where it was clear from the context of the statements that they implicated working conditions. This finding of protected activity does not change if employee statements were communicated via the internet. See, e.g., Valley Hospital Medical Center, 351 NLRB 1250, 1252-54 (2007), enfd. sub nom. Nevada Service Employees Union, Local 1107 v. NLRB, 358 F. App’x 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Here, the coworker sought input from a fellow employee about her dispute with the advocate after the advocate indicated that they should have the Executive Director settle their differences. The coworker had reason to believe that the advocate’s action would result in a discussion with management about employees’ responsibilities and performance and could result in discipline. The comments of the other employees in response to the coworker’s initial Facebook posting were directly related to criticisms of job performance and staffing/workload issues. Thus, because the Facebook postings directly implicated terms and conditions of employment and were initiated in preparation for a meeting with the Employer to discuss matters related to these issues, we concluded that the Facebook conversation was concerted activity for “mutual aid or protection” under Section 7. Finally, we held that the discharged employees did not lose the Act’s protection. Although there was swearing and/or sarcasm in a few of the Facebook posts, the conversation was objectively quite innocuous. We also found that the postings were not “opprobrious” under the Atlantic Steel Co. test, 245
  • 5. NLRB 814, 816-817 (1979), typically applied to employees disciplined for public outbursts against supervisors. Internet and Blogging Standards and Discharge of Employee for Facebook Posting Were Unlawful In this case, we considered whether the Employer--an ambulance service--maintained an unlawful internet and blogging policy and whether it unlawfully terminated an employee who posted negative remarks about her supervisor on her personal Facebook page. When asked by her supervisor to prepare an incident report concerning a customer complaint about her work, the employee asked for a union representative while she prepared the report. She did not receive any union representation. Later that day from her home computer, the employee posted a negative remark about the supervisor on her personal Facebook page, which drew supportive responses from her coworkers, and led to further negative comments about the supervisor from the employee. The employee was suspended and later terminated for her Facebook postings and because such postings violated the Employer’s internet policies. The Employer’s employee handbook contained a blogging and internet posting policy. It prohibited employees from making disparaging remarks when discussing the company or supervisors, and from depicting the company in any media, including but not limited to the internet, without company permission. We initially concluded that the incident report the employee was asked to prepare constituted an investigatory interview to which the employee had a Weingarten right to union representation, and that the Employer unlawfully denied her that right and threatened her with discipline for invoking that right. We then turned to whether the Employer unlawfully terminated her for engaging in protected activity and whether it maintained unlawful internet and blogging policies. We found that the General Counsel established a prima facie case under Wright Line, and that the Employer did not meet its rebuttal burden. The employee engaged in protected activity by exercising her Weingarten right and by discussing supervisory actions with coworkers in her Facebook post. It is well established that the protest of supervisory actions is protected conduct under Section 7. See Datwyler Rubber and Plastics, Inc., 350 NLRB 669 (2007). Applying Atlantic Steel, we concluded that the employee did not lose the Act’s protections when she referred to her supervisor by such terms as “scumbag.” As to the place of the discussion, the Facebook postings did not interrupt the work of any employee because they occurred outside the workplace and
  • 6. during nonworking time. As to the subject matter of the discussion, the comments were made during an online employee discussion of supervisory action, which is protected activity. Regarding the nature of the outburst, the name-calling was not accompanied by verbal or physical threats, and the Board has found more egregious name-calling protected. We found that the last Atlantic Steel factor strongly favored a finding that the conduct was protected; the employee’s Facebook postings were provoked by the supervisor’s unlawful refusal to provide her with a union representative and by his unlawful threat of discipline. We also considered the lawfulness of the Employer’s blogging and internet posting policy. The first challenged portion of the policy prohibited employees from posting pictures of themselves in any media, including the internet, which depict the company in any way, including a company uniform, corporate logo, or an ambulance. We concluded that this language violated Section 8(a)(1) because it would prohibit an employee from engaging in protected activity; for example, an employee could not post a picture of employees carrying a picket sign depicting the company’s name, or wear a t-shirt portraying the company’s logo in connection with a protest involving terms and conditions of employment. We also concluded that the portion of the policy prohibiting employees from making disparaging comments when discussing the company or the employee’s superiors, coworkers, and/or competitors was unlawful. In University Medical Center, 335 NLRB 1318, 1320-1322 (2001), enf. denied in pertinent part 335 F.3d 1079 (D.C. Cir. 2003), the Board found that a similar rule prohibiting “disrespectful conduct” towards others violated Section 8(a)(1). Like the rule in University Medical Center, the rule here contained no limiting language to inform employees that it did not apply to Section 7 activity. Also under challenge was the Employer’s standards-of- conduct policy. This policy prohibited the use of language or action that was inappropriate or of a general offensive nature, and rude or discourteous behavior to a client or coworker. We concluded that the prohibition here of “offensive conduct” and “rude or discourteous behavior” proscribed a broad spectrum of conduct and contained no limiting language to remove the rule’s ambiguity in prohibiting Section 7 activity. Employee’s Facebook Postings Were Part of Protected Concerted Conduct Related to Concerns Over Commissions In this case, we concluded that the Employer--a luxury automobile dealership--violated Section 8(a)(1) when it discharged an employee--a salesperson--for posting on his Facebook page photographs and commentary that criticized a sales event held by the Employer. We concluded that the employee’s
  • 7. postings were part of a course of protected, concerted conduct related to employees’ concerns over commissions and were not disparaging of the Employer’s product or so “egregious” as to lose the Act’s protection. In early June 2010, the employee was at work when someone in a vehicle at a dealership across the street, which was also owned by the Employer, accidently drove into a pond in front of the dealership. The employee joined his coworkers in watching the commotion, and he took some photographs. That same week, the Employer was hosting an all-day event to introduce a new car model. Clients registered for this event, and the corporate office provided professional drivers to drive the cars with clients. Shortly before the event, around June 6, the Employer’s General Sales Manager met with the salespeople to discuss the event. He explained that the Employer would serve hot dogs, cookies and snacks from a warehouse club, and water. The salespeople remarked about the choice in food, and at least one asked why the Employer was not serving more substantial refreshments. After the meeting, the salespeople discussed their disappointment with the way the Employer was handling the event. They were concerned that the inexpensive food and beverages would send the wrong message to their clients and negatively affect their sales and commissions. During the sales event, the employee took photographs of the food and beverages served, of his coworkers posing with the food, and of a large promotional banner advertising the new car model. The following week, while at home, the employee posted on his Facebook page the photographs of the vehicle in the pond and of the sales event. In an introduction to the sales event photographs, he remarked that he was happy to see that the Employer had gone all out for the important car launch by providing small bags of chips, inexpensive cookies from the warehouse club, semi-fresh fruit, and a hot dog cart where clients could get overcooked hot dogs and stale buns. The photographs included one of a coworker holding a water bottle, kneeling next to a cooler with ice and water bottles; several of the cookie and snack table; one of a coworker near the hot dog cart, and one of the promotional banner. The employee included comments along with the photographs, reflecting his critical opinion of the inexpensive food and beverages provided. The following week, the Employer received a call from another dealer who commented about the photographs of the car in the pond. A part-time coworker, who was Facebook “friend” with the employee, had also seen the posting and had mentioned it to her supervisor. This prompted the Employer to look at the employee’s Facebook page and to print out the photographs and
  • 8. comments related to the pond incident and the sales event. The Employer’s General Sales Manager called the employee at home and told him to remove the photographs and comments from his Facebook page; he immediately complied. When the employee went to work on June 16, he was called into a meeting with managers. The Employer tossed the printout of the sales event photographs at him, asked him what he was thinking, and said they were embarrassing to the dealership and its founder and CEO. The Employer sent him home while it considered a final decision regarding his employment. Shortly after, the employee was terminated. Several months later, the Employer claimed that the real reason for the employee’s discharge was his posting of the photographs of the car in the pond because he had made light of a serious accident. We concluded that the employee was engaged in concerted activity, under the Meyers cases discussed above, when he posted the comments and photographs regarding the sales event on his Facebook page. As noted, before the event, several employees were displeased with the planned food choices, and after the meeting, the employees discussed this frustration among themselves. At the event, the employee took photographs to document the event and capture his coworker’s frustration. He told his coworkers that he would put the photographs on Facebook, and in doing so, expressed the sentiment of the group. The Facebook activity was a direct outgrowth of the earlier discussion among the salespeople that followed the meeting with management. Although the employee posted the photographs on Facebook and wrote the comments himself, we concluded that this type of activity was clearly concerted. We found that he was vocalizing the sentiments of his coworkers and continuing the course of concerted activity that began when the salespeople raised their concerns at the staff meeting. Further, we concluded that this concerted activity clearly was related to the employees’ terms and conditions of employment. Since the employees worked entirely on commission, they were concerned about the impact the Employer’s choice of refreshments would have on sales, and therefore, their commissions. We found that the Employer knew of the concerted nature of the employee’s conduct and that it could not meet its burden under Wright Line of demonstrating that it would have discharged the employee, even in the absence of the protected activity, because of his postings regarding the incident with the car in the pond. We also concluded that the employee’s activity did not lose the protection of the Act under either Atlantic Steel or under NLRB v. Electrical Workers Local 1229 (Jefferson Standard), 346
  • 9. U.S. 464 (1953). As noted above, Atlantic Steel is generally applied to an employee who has made public outbursts against a supervisor, while Jefferson Standard is usually applied where an employee has made allegedly disparaging comments about an employer or its product in the context of appeals to outside or third parties. Applying Atlantic Steel, we found that the employee’s Facebook postings regarding the sales event were not so opprobrious as to lose the Act’s protection. The activity concerned a subject matter protected under Section 7. Further, although the activity was not provoked by any unfair labor practice committed by the Employer, the nature of the outburst was much less offensive than other behavior found protected by the Board. We found it unnecessary to rule on the place of the discussion factor because, on balance, the conduct clearly retained the Act’s protection. Under Jefferson Standard, the inquiry is whether the communication is related to an ongoing labor dispute and whether it is not so disloyal, reckless, or maliciously untrue as to lose the Act’s protection. Here, the employee’s postings were neither disparaging of the Employer’s product nor disloyal. The postings merely expressed frustration with the Employer’s choice of food at the sales event. They did not refer to the quality of the cars or the performance of the dealership and did not criticize the Employer’s management. We found it irrelevant that the postings did not clearly indicate that they were related to a labor dispute given that they were neither disparaging nor disloyal. Employees’ Facebook Postings About Tax Withholding Practices Were Protected Concerted Activity We also considered a case in which the Employer-—a sports bar and restaurant--discharged and threatened to sue two employees who participated in a Facebook conversation initiated by a former coworker about the Employer’s tax withholding practices. This case also raised issues concerning the Employer’s internet/blogging policy that prohibited “inappropriate discussions.” We found that the discharges, threats of legal action, and the internet policy were unlawful. In early 2011, several of the Employer’s former and current employees discovered that they owed state income taxes for 2010, related to earnings at the Employer. After this discovery, at least one employee brought the issue to the Employer’s attention and requested that the matter be placed on the agenda for discussion at an upcoming management meeting with employees. Thereafter, on February 1, a former employee posted on her Facebook page a statement, including a short-hand expletive, that expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that she now owed
  • 10. money. She also asserted that the Employer’s owners could not even do paperwork correctly. One employee--Charging Party A-- responded to this posting by clicking “Like.” That same day, a series of statements related to the initial posting followed. Two other employees commented that they had never owed money before, and one of them referred to telling the Employer that we will discuss this at the meeting. Two of the Employer’s customers joined in the conversation, as did Charging Party B, who asserted that she also owed money and referred to one of the Employer’s owners as “[s]uch an asshole.” The Charging Parties were not working on the day of the Facebook conversation. When Charging Party B reported back to work on February 2, she was told that her employment was terminated due to her Facebook posting and because she was not “loyal enough” to work for the Employer anymore. The following day, Charging Party A reported to work and was confronted by the Employer about the Facebook conversation. He was terminated and told that he would be hearing from the Employer’s attorney. Thereafter, Charging Party B received a letter dated February 5 from the Employer’s attorney stating that legal action would be initiated against her unless she retracted her “defamatory” statements regarding the Employer and its principals published to the general public on Facebook. As noted, under the Meyers cases, the Board’s test for concerted activity is whether activity is “engaged in with or on the authority of other employees, and not solely by and on behalf of the employee himself.” Concerted activity also includes “circumstances where individual employees seek to initiate or to induce or to prepare for group action” and where individual employees bring “truly group complaints” to management’s attention. Meyers II, 281 NLRB at 887. Here, the February 1 conversation on Facebook related to employees’ shared concerns about a term and condition of employment--the Employer’s administration of income tax withholdings. Moreover, prior to the Facebook conversation, this shared concern had been brought to the Employer’s attention by at least one employee who specifically noted on Facebook that she had requested it be discussed at an upcoming management meeting with employees. Thus, the conversation that transpired on Facebook not only embodied “truly group complaints” but also contemplated future group activity. We found that the Charging Parties’ statements did not lose protection either under Atlantic Steel or, as the Employer asserted, because they were defamatory. Applying Atlantic Steel, we found that three of the four factors weighed in favor of the Charging Parties’ retaining the protection of the Act. As noted, the Charging Parties’statements related to a core concern protected under
  • 11. Section 7. Moreover, the comments were initiated outside of the workplace during the Charging Parties’ nonworking time, and neither disrupted operations nor undermined supervisory authority. Furthermore, although the activity was not provoked by any unfair labor practice committed by the Employer, the nature of the Charging Parties’ postings was much less offensive than other behavior found protected by the Board. With regard to the Employer’s allegation of defamation, an alleged defamatory statement will not lose its protected status unless it is not only false but maliciously false. Here, Charging Party A merely indicated that he “liked” the initial Facebook posting by his former coworker, which accused the Employer’s owners of not being able to do paperwork correctly. Charging Party B’s posting was limited to a factually correct statement that she had an outstanding tax obligation, and her opinion that one of the Employer’s owners was “[s]uch an asshole.” The Charging Parties’ Facebook postings, to the extent that they constituted statements of fact that could be alleged as defamatory, were not even false, much less maliciously false under the Board’s standard. We also concluded that the Employer’s threats to sue the Charging Parties for engaging in protected concerted activity violated Section 8(a)(1). It is well established that an employer’s threat to sue employees for engaging in Section 7 activity violates the Act because it would reasonably tend to interfere with the exercise of Section 7 rights. The Board has historically distinguished the threat of a lawsuit from the actual filing of a lawsuit and has rejected employers’ attempts to extend the First Amendment protection accorded to lawsuits to threats to sue where those threats, as here, were not incidental to the actual filing of a suit. Thus, we found that the Employer’s threats to sue the Charging Parties were unlawful, even if there was a reasonable basis for potential legal action. We also considered the lawfulness of the Employer’s internet/blogging policy. This policy, included in the Employer’s employee handbook, provided that the employer supported the free exchange of information and camaraderie among employees. The policy went on to state that when internet blogging, chat room discussions, e-mail, text messages, or other forms of communication extend to employees revealing confidential and proprietary information about the employer, or engaging in inappropriate discussions about the company, management, and/or coworkers, the employee may be violating the law and is subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. An employer violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act through the maintenance of a work rule if that rule would “reasonably tend to chill employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.” Lafayette Park Hotel, 326 NLRB 824, 825 (1998), enfd. 203 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 1999). The Board uses a two-step inquiry to
  • 12. determine if a work rule would have such an effect. Lutheran Heritage Village–Livonia, 343 NLRB 646, 647 (2004). First, a rule is unlawful if it explicitly restricts Section 7 activities. If the rule does not explicitly restrict protected activities, it is unlawful only upon a showing that: (1) employees would reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activity; (2) the rule was promulgated in response to union activity; or (3) the rule has been applied to restrict the exercise of Section 7 rights. Applying these standards here, we concluded that the provision of the Employer’s policy stating that employees are subject to discipline for engaging in “inappropriate discussions” about the company, management, and/or coworkers could reasonably be interpreted to restrain Section 7 activity. This policy utilized broad terms that would commonly apply to protected criticism of the Employer’s labor policies, treatment of employees, and terms and conditions of employment. Moreover, the policy did not define what was encompassed by the broad term “inappropriate discussions” by specific examples or limit it in any way that would exclude Section 7 activity. Absent such limitations or examples of what was covered, we concluded that employees would reasonably interpret the rule to prohibit their discussion of terms and conditions of employment among themselves or with third parties. Employee Who Posted Offensive Tweets Was Not Engaged in Protected Concerted Activity In another case, we considered whether the Employer--a newspaper--violated Section 8(a)(1) when it discharged an employee--a reporter--for posting unprofessional and inappropriate tweets to a work-related Twitter account. We concluded that the employee’s Twitter postings did not involve protected concerted activity. In the spring of 2009, after the Employer encouraged employees to open Twitter accounts and to use social media to get news stories out, the employee opened a Twitter account, picked his screen name, and controlled the content of his tweets. In the biography section of his account, he stated that he was a reporter for the Employer’s newspaper, and he included a link to the newspaper’s website. In early 2010, the employee posted a tweet critical of the paper’s copy editors. The tweet was in response to his concerns about sports department headlines, but there is no evidence that he had discussed his concerns with any of his coworkers. About a week after that tweet, the Employer’s Human Resources Director asked the employee why he felt the need to post his concerns on Twitter instead of simply speaking to people within the organization, and whether he thought it was
  • 13. appropriate to post these types of tweets. The employee asked if the newspaper had a social media policy. The Human Resources Director replied that the policy was being worked on. About a week later, the employee was told that he was prohibited from airing his grievances or commenting about the newspaper in any public forum. He replied that he understood. He continued to tweet and to use other social media to post about various matters, including matters relating to his public safety beat. He did not make public comments about the newspaper. Between August 27 and September 19, he posted various tweets about homicides in the city, as well as several with sexual content. On September 21, the employee posted a tweet that criticized an area television station. The next day, a web producer for the television station took issue with the tweet and emailed the paper about it. Thereafter, the employee emailed the web producer and apologized. During the afternoon of September 22, the employee was called into a meeting with the Managing Editor, the City Editor, and his team leader. The Managing Editor referred to the tweet about the television station and then asked the employee why he was tweeting about homicides. She told him that it was not okay to make these types of tweets and that they would meet again when the Executive Editor and Human Resources Director were there. Until then, she said that he was not allowed to tweet about anything work-related. The employee asked whether the paper had a social media policy. She replied that it had not yet been established and that it was almost complete. Two days later, the employee was suspended for three days without pay. When he returned to work, he was terminated. The termination letter asserted that he had disregarded guidance to refrain from using derogatory comments in any social media forums that could damage the goodwill of the company and that the Employer had no confidence that he could sustain its expectation of professional courtesy and mutual respect. We found that the employee’s discharge did not violate Section 8(a)(1) because he was terminated for writing inappropriate and offensive Twitter postings that did not involve protected concerted activity. His conduct was not protected and concerted: it did not relate to the terms and conditions of his employment or seek to involve other employees in issues related to employment. Ignoring his Employer’s warning, he continued to post inappropriate tweets while covering his beat. He was discharged for this misconduct, which did not involve protected activity. The employee alleged that he was disciplined pursuant to an unlawful rule that prohibited certain Section 7 activities. We
  • 14. concluded, however, that the Employer did not implement an unlawful rule. Although some of the Employer’s statements could be interpreted to prohibit activities protected by Section 7, these statements did not constitute orally promulgated, overbroad “rules”. They were made solely to the employee in the context of discipline, and in response to specific inappropriate conduct, and were not communicated to other employees or proclaimed as new “rules.” In fact, the Employer indicated that it had not yet developed a written social media rule. Bartender Who Posted Facebook Message About Employer’s Tipping Policy Was Not Engaged in Concerted Activity This case concerned an employee--a bartender--who was discharged for posting a message on his Facebook page that referenced the Employer’s tipping policy, in response to a question from a nonemployee. We found that the employee was not engaged in concerted activity. The Employer operates a restaurant and bar. It maintains an unwritten policy that waitresses do not share their tips with the bartenders even though the bartenders help the waitresses serve food. Sometime in the fall of 2010, the employee had a conversation with a fellow bartender about this tipping policy. He complained about the policy, and she agreed that it “sucked.” However, neither they nor any other bartender ever raised the issue with management. In February 2011, the employee had a conversation on Facebook with a relative. Responding to her query as to how his night at work had gone, he complained that he hadn’t had a raise in five years and that he was doing the waitresses’ work without tips. He also called the Employer’s customers “rednecks” and stated that he hoped they choked on glass as they drove home drunk. He did not discuss his posting with any of his coworkers, and none of them responded to it. About a week later, the Employer’s night manager told the employee that he was probably going to be fired over it. In May, the employee received a Facebook message from the Employer’s owner informing him that his services were no longer required, and the next day, the Employer’s day manager left him a voice message stating that he was fired for his Facebook posting about the Employer’s customers. As noted above, under the Meyers cases, the Board’s test for concerted activity is whether activity is “engaged in with or on the authority of other employees, and not solely by and on behalf of the employee himself.” We found no evidence of concerted activity here. Although the employee’s Facebook posting addressed his terms and conditions of employment, he did
  • 15. not discuss the posting with his coworkers, and none of them responded to the posting. There had been no employee meetings or any attempt to initiate group action concerning the tipping policy or raises. We also found that this internet “conversation” did not grow out of the employee’s conversation with a fellow bartender months earlier about the tipping policy. Employee Who Posted on Her Senator’s ‘Wall’ Was Not Engaged in Concerted Activity In another case, we considered whether the Employer unlawfully discharged an employee who had posted messages on the Facebook page of one of the U.S. Senators who represented her state. We concluded that the discharge was not unlawful because the employee was not engaged in concerted activity. The Employer provides emergency and nonemergency medical transportation and fire protection services to municipal, residential, commercial, and industrial customers. The employee worked as a dispatcher for the Employer, and her husband was an EMT. The Senator had announced on Facebook that four fire departments in his state had received federal grants. Responding to this announcement, the employee wrote comments on the Senator’s Facebook “wall”. She stated, among other things, that her Employer had contracts with several fire departments for emergency medical services because it was the cheapest service in town and paid employees $2 less than the national average. She complained that the state was looking for more cheap companies to farm jobs out to. She also referred to the fact that the Employer had only two trucks for an entire county, and she mentioned an incident in which a crew that responded to a cardiac arrest call did not know how to perform CPR. The employee did not discuss her Facebook comments with other employees before or after posting them. She claimed that she wanted to let the Senator know that she disagreed with how emergency medical services were handled in her state and that her kind of company was not helping the current situation. She did not think that the Senator could help with her employment situation. Although she had discussed wages with other employees after the Employer had announced a wage cap, there is no evidence that employees had met or organized any group action to raise wage issues with the Employer. Ten days after her Facebook comments, the Employer terminated her for publicly posting disparaging remarks about the Employer and confidential information about its response to a service call. Her termination form also stated that her comments violated the Employer’s code of ethics and business conduct policy.
  • 16. We concluded that the employee here did not engage in any concerted activity under the Meyers test discussed above. As noted, she did not discuss her posting with any other employee, including her spouse. There had been no employee meetings or any attempt to initiate group action. She was not trying to take employee complaints to management and admittedly did not expect the Senator to help her situation. Instead, she was merely trying to make a public official aware of the condition of emergency medical services in her state. Employee Who Made Facebook Comments About Mentally Disabled Clients Was Not Engaged in Concerted Activity In this case, we considered whether the Employer--a nonprofit facility for homeless people--violated the Act when it discharged an employee for inappropriate Facebook posts that referred to the Employer’s mentally disabled clients. We concluded that the employee was not engaged in protected concerted activity and therefore the discharge was not unlawful. In May 2010, the Employer received a grant to develop a new residential program for residents with significant mental health issues. The employee, who had been a part-time residential assistant, became a full-time recovery specialist in the new program. On January 27, 2011, the employee, while working on the overnight shift, engaged in a “conversation” on her Facebook wall with two Facebook “friends”. Among other things, she stated that it was spooky being alone overnight in a mental institution, that one client was cracking her up, and that the employee did not know whether the client was laughing at her, with her, or at the client’s own voices. The two “friends” who commented on the employee’s posts were not coworkers. The employee was Facebook “friends”, however, with one of the Employer’s former clients, who saw the postings and called the Employer to report her concern. As a result, when the employee reported for work on January 31, she was terminated. The termination letter referenced the phone call from the former client and quoted the employee’s January 27 Facebook posts. The letter stated that “[w]e are invested in protecting people we serve from stigma” and it was not “recovery oriented” to use the clients’ illnesses for the employee’s personal amusement. The letter also cited confidentiality concerns and noted that the employee’s posts were entered when she should have been working. We found that the employee did not engage in any protected concerted activity under the Meyers cases discussed above. The employee did not discuss her Facebook posts with any of her fellow employees, and none of her coworkers responded to the
  • 17. posts. Moreover, she was not seeking to induce or prepare for group action, and her activity was not an outgrowth of the employees’ collective concerns. In fact, her Facebook posts did not even mention any terms or conditions of employment. The employee was merely communicating with her personal friends about what was happening on her shift. Employee’s Facebook Postings About Manager Were Individual Gripes, Not Concerted Activity In another case, the Employer--a retail store operator-- disciplined a customer service employee for profane Facebook comments that were critical of local store management. We found insufficient evidence that the employee engaged in concerted activity. On October 28, after an interaction with a new Assistant Manager, the employee posted a comment complaining about the “tyranny” at the store and suggesting that the Employer would get a wake up call because lots of employees are about to quit. Several coworkers responded to his comment, expressing emotional support, and asking why he was so wound up. The employee responded to his coworkers’ postings by asserting that the Assistant Manager was being a “super mega puta” and complaining about being chewed out for mispriced or misplaced merchandise. The employee asserted that two other coworkers also made supportive comments. One of those coworkers confirmed that she made a “hang in there” type of remark. At least one coworker who viewed the employee’s Facebook postings provided a printout to the Employer’s Store Manager. On about November 4, the Store Manager told the employee that his Facebook comments were slander and that he could be fired. She imposed a one-day paid suspension that precluded promotion opportunities for 12 months. She also prepared a discipline report stating that the employee had put bad things on Facebook about the Employer and Assistant Manager, that the employee’s behavior was not within company guidelines, and that the employee would be terminated if such behavior continued. The employee subsequently deleted the Facebook postings. We concluded that the employee’s Facebook postings were an expression of an individual gripe, and were not concerted within the Meyers cases discussed above. They contained no language suggesting that the employee sought to initiate or induce coworkers to engage in group action; rather they expressed only his frustration regarding his individual dispute with the Assistant Manager over mispriced or misplaced items. Moreover, none of the coworkers’ Facebook responses indicated that they had otherwise interpreted the employee’s postings. They merely
  • 18. indicated that they had found the employee’s first posting humorous, asked why the employee was so “wound up,” or offered emotional support. We also found no evidence that established that the employee’s postings were the logical outgrowth of prior group activity. Union Violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by Posting ‘Interrogation’ Videotape on YouTube and Facebook In this case, we found that a Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) when it interrogated employees at a nonunion jobsite about their immigration status, videotaped that interrogation, and posted an edited version of the videotape on YouTube and the Local Union’s Facebook page. A Union business agent and three Union organizers visited the worksite of a nonunion subcontractor. The Union representatives did not identify themselves or reveal their Union affiliation. One carried a video recorder. After climbing to the roof where employees were working, the chief Union spokesman told the employees that they had to ask some questions, that they were inspecting the job, and that they had reports of illegal workers. He then asked three employees about their country of origin, their immigration status, whether they had “ID’s,” when and how they were hired, how they were paid, how they paid their taxes, and whether they supplied social security numbers or the Employer assigned them numbers. At various times, the employees tried to resist answering the questions and return to work, but the Union agents instructed them not to. They asked the employees for identification to verify their legal status. When the employees said that they did not have identification, the Union agents said that they would return in a half hour and that the employees better have identification then. The Union agents then climbed down to the ground level and asked similar questions of some of the employees there. The videotape of this incident runs approximately eighteen minutes. The Union gave copies of the DVD to various federal and state government officials. A Local Union member edited the video down to approximately four minutes and interspersed written editorial comments. He posted the edited version on YouTube and on the Facebook page for his Local Union. We initially concluded that the Union’s videotaped “investigation” violated Section 8(b)(1)(A). The Board will find a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) if a union’s conduct had a reasonable tendency to restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. It implicitly has found that there is a protected right to work for a nonunion employer. In the Electrical Workers Local 98 cases, the Board ruled that a union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by interfering with an
  • 19. employee’s performance of his work duties for a nonunion employer. See Electrical Workers Local 98 (Tri-M Group, LLC), 350 NLRB 1104, 1105-08 (2007), enfd. 317 F. App’x 269 (3d Cir. 2009); Electrical Workers Local 98 (MCF Services), 342 NLRB 740, 740, 752 (2004), enfd. 251 F. App’x 101 (3d Cir. 2007). In addition, union threats to call immigration authorities or to have employees deported constitute unlawful coercion. Further, videotaping or photographing employees is unlawful under Section 8(b)(1)(A) where accompanied by other conduct indicating that the union would react adversely to employees’ exercising their Section 7 right to refrain from union activity. In this case, we found that the Union’s own videotape demonstrates that its agents engaged in coercive conduct within the scope of Section 8(b)(1)(A). As described above, Union agents entered the Employer’s jobsite in a threatening manner, interfered with its employees’ performance of their work, and coercively interrogated the employees in circumstances that reasonably would have led them to believe that they were in danger of being deported for immigration violations. We also concluded that the Union’s posting of an edited version of the videotape on YouTube and the Local’s Facebook page was unlawful as well. Any employees who viewed these postings, either through the YouTube link that expressly named the Union or through the Local’s Facebook page, were subject to the same coercive message conveyed to the workers at the jobsite. Provisions of Employer’s Social Media Policy Were Overly Broad In another case, we found that several provisions of an Employer’s social media policy were overly broad as employees could reasonably construe them to prohibit protected conduct. The Employer--a hospital--issued a social media, blogging and social networking policy, which was later incorporated into the Employer’s employee handbook. Rule 4 of the policy prohibited employees from using any social media that may violate, compromise, or disregard the rights and reasonable expectations as to privacy or confidentiality of any person or entity. Rule 5 prohibited any communication or post that constitutes embarrassment, harassment or defamation of the hospital or of any hospital employee, officer, board member, representative, or staff member. Rule 6 contained a similar prohibition against statements that lack truthfulness or that might damage the reputation or goodwill of the hospital, its staff, or employees. In this case, several nurses were unhappy with one of their colleagues who was frequently absent, creating extra demands on their time and workload. The Charging Party and others had
  • 20. complained to their manager about this, but he had not done anything to rectify the situation. One weekend, the nurse who was frequently absent called in sick. Several days later, the Charging Party posted a comment on her own Facebook page complaining about her colleague’s recent absence. The Charging Party referred to the colleague’s pattern of calling in sick or absent and that she had disrupted the work that weekend. The posting ended with asking anyone with other details to contact her. One of the Charging Party’s Facebook “friends” gave a copy of this posting to the Employer. About a week later, the Charging Party was reprimanded for her posting on Facebook, told that she had “talked badly about the hospital” in violation of the Employer’s social media policy, and was terminated. We concluded that the provisions of the Employer’s social media policy, as set out above, were overly broad as employees could reasonably construe them to prohibit protected conduct. We concluded that portions of the Employer’s social media policy were unlawful under the second step of the Lutheran Heritage test discussed above. We found that Rule 4 provided no definition or guidance as to what the Employer considered to be private or confidential. Yet, the Employer relied on the rule to terminate the Charging Party for her Facebook complaints that were clearly concerted and related to her working conditions and, if she was a statutory employee, would be protected under the Act. Thus, absent any limitations on what was covered, and in light of the Employer’s application of the rule to protected conduct, Rule 4 could reasonably be interpreted as prohibiting protected employee discussion of wages and other terms and conditions of employment, and was therefore overbroad. We also found that Rules 5 and 6 were overbroad. These included broad terms that would commonly apply to protected criticism of the Employer’s labor policies or treatment of employees. The policy did not define these broad terms or limit them in any way that would exclude Section 7 activity. We concluded that the Employer’s application and interpretation of the broad language in Rule 5 to cover the Charging Party’s expression of frustration over a colleague’s conduct that frequently resulted in heavier demands on the staff would reasonably lead employees to conclude that protected complaints about their working conditions were prohibited. Employee Handbook Rules on Social Media Policies Were Overly Broad Similarly, we found that another Employer’s handbook rules pertaining to social media policies were overly broad.
  • 21. The Employer’s online social networking policy, included in the Employer’s employee handbook, prohibited employees on their own time from using micro-blogging features to talk about company business on their personal accounts; from posting anything that they would not want their manager or supervisor to see or that would put their job in jeopardy; from disclosing inappropriate or sensitive information about the Employer; and from posting any pictures or comments involving the company or its employees that could be construed as inappropriate. It also cautioned that one inappropriate picture or comment taken out of context could fall into the wrong hands and cost an employee his or her job. We found that the prohibited conduct section of the policy was unlawful under the second part of the Lutheran Heritage test, described above, because its prohibitions would reasonably be construed to prohibit Section 7 activity. These prohibitions were broad terms that would commonly apply to protected discussion about, or criticism of, the Employer’s labor policies or treatment of employees. Neither the handbook nor its online social networking policy section provided any definition or guidance as to what communications the Employer was referring to that would put employees’ jobs in jeopardy, or that the Employer would consider inappropriate or sensitive. Absent such limitations or examples of what was covered, the rules would reasonably be interpreted as prohibiting the employees’ right to discuss wages and other terms and conditions of employment, as well as to communicate through the posting of pictures. The Employer’s policy prohibited employees from using the company name, address, or other information on their personal profiles. We found that this prohibition was unlawful. The Employer offered no explanation as to why employees could not identify the Employer on their personal profiles, but even assuming that it had a legitimate interest in preventing disclosure of certain protected company information to outside parties, the ban was not narrowly drawn to address those concerns. Here, moreover, the function that the “personal profile page” serves in letting employees use the social network to find and communicate with their coworkers made this prohibition particularly harmful to their Section 7 rights. Policy’s Bar on Pressuring Coworkers to Use Social Media Was Lawful, But Other Prohibitions Were Too Broad In another case, we looked at three policy guidelines in an Employer’s social media policy. We found one guideline lawful, where it was narrowly drawn to restrict harassing conduct and could not reasonably be construed to interfere with protected activity. However, we found that two other provisions of the policy were unlawfully broad.
  • 22. The Employer operates a supermarket chain. It implemented a new social media and electronic communication policy, which stated that it was designed to protect the Employer’s reputation and that it governed employee communications during both work and personal time. Guideline 3 of the policy precluded employees from pressuring their coworkers to connect or communicate with them via social media. Guideline 5 precluded employees from revealing, including through the use of photographs, personal information regarding coworkers, company clients, partners, or customers without their consent. Guideline 6 precluded the use of the Employer’s logos and photographs of the Employer’s store, brand, or product, without written authorization. Applying Lafayette Park Hotel and Lutheran Heritage, as discussed above, we concluded that the Employer’s admonition in guideline 3 that no employee should ever be pressured to “friend” or otherwise connect with a coworker via social media could not be reasonably read to restrict Section 7 activity. The rule was sufficiently specific in its prohibition against pressuring coworkers and clearly applied only to harassing conduct. It could not reasonably be interpreted to apply more broadly to restrict employees from attempting to “friend” or otherwise contact colleagues for the purposes of engaging in protected concerted or union activity. We found, however, that guideline 5’s restriction upon revealing personal information was unduly broad and could reasonably be interpreted as restraining Section 7 activity. Employees have a Section 7 right to discuss their wages and other terms and conditions of employment. A rule precluding employees from discussing terms and conditions of employment, or sharing information about themselves or their fellow employees with each other or with nonemployees violates Section 8(a)(1). Absent any limitations or examples of what is covered, we concluded that the guideline would reasonably be interpreted as prohibiting employees’ right to discuss wages and other terms and conditions of employment. Similarly, we decided that the prohibition in guideline 6 on using the Employer’s logos or photographs of the Employer’s stores would restrain an employee from engaging in protected activity. For example, an employee could not post pictures of employees carrying a picket sign depicting the Employer’s name, peacefully handbill in front of a store, or wear a t-shirt portraying the Employer’s logo in connection with a protest involving terms and conditions of employment.
  • 23. Employer’s Rule Restricting Employee Contacts with Media Was Lawful Another case presented a challenge to an Employer’s policy restricting employees’ contacts with the media. Applying the Lutheran Heritage standard, discussed above, we concluded that the policy could not reasonably be interpreted to prohibit employees from speaking on their own behalf with reporters and therefore did not violate the Act. The Employer--a grocery store chain--included a media relations and press interviews policy in its employee handbook. Under this policy, the public affairs office was responsible for all official external communications; employees were expected to maintain confidentiality about sensitive information; and it was imperative that one person should speak for the Employer to deliver an appropriate message and avoid giving misinformation. The policy also prohibited employees from using cameras in the store or parking lot without prior approval from the corporate office. In addition, employees were directed to respond to all media questions by replying that they were not authorized to comment for the Employer or did not have the information being sought, to take the name and number of the media organization, and to call the public affairs office. It is well established that employees have a Section 7 right to speak to reporters about wages and other terms and conditions of employment. See Kinder-Care Learning Centers, 299 NLRB 1171, 1172 (1990). Therefore, while an employer has a legitimate business interest in limiting who can make official statements for the company, its rules cannot be so broadly worded that employees would reasonably think that they were prohibited from exercising their Section 7 right to speak with reporters about working conditions. However, a media policy that simply seeks to ensure a consistent, controlled company message and limits employee contact with the media only to the extent necessary to effect that result cannot be reasonably interpreted to restrict Section 7 communications. In AT&T Broadband & Internet Services, Case 12-CA-21220 at 10, Advice Memorandum dated November 6, 2001, we determined that a policy that stated that “the company will respond to the news media in a timely and professional manner only through the designated spokespersons” could not be read as “a blanket prohibition” against all employee contact with the media. Additional language in the rule referring to “crisis situations” and ensuring “timely and professional” response to media inquiries further clarified that the rule was not meant to apply to Section 7 activities. Similarly, we concluded here that the Employer’s media policy repeatedly stated that the purpose of the policy was to ensure that only one person spoke for the company. Although
  • 24. employees were instructed to answer all media/reporter questions in a particular way, the required responses did not convey the impression that employees could not speak out on their terms and conditions of employment. We also concluded that the Employer’s rule against allowing cameras in the store was not unlawfully overbroad. The prohibition of cameras followed and preceded instructions about how to deal with news media and events drawing outside attention. The only reasonable interpretation of this rule was that the cameras referred to are news cameras, not employees’ own personal cameras, and therefore this part of the media policy would not chill employees’ Section 7 conduct.